[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                    EXAMINING THE HISTORY OF FEDERAL 
                     LANDS AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF 
                     TRIBAL CO-MANAGEMENT

=======================================================================

                            OVERSIGHT HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                         Tuesday, March 8, 2022

                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-15

                               __________

       Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
       
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]       


        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
                                   or
          Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
          
                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
47-061 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2022                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------           
         
                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                      RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Chair
                JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, IL, Vice Chair
   GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, CNMI, Vice Chair, Insular Affairs
                  BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Ranking Member

Grace F. Napolitano, CA              Don Young, AK
Jim Costa, CA                        Louie Gohmert, TX
Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,      Doug Lamborn, CO
    CNMI                             Robert J. Wittman, VA
Jared Huffman, CA                    Tom McClintock, CA
Alan S. Lowenthal, CA                Garret Graves, LA
Ruben Gallego, AZ                    Jody B. Hice, GA
Joe Neguse, CO                       Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS
Mike Levin, CA                       Daniel Webster, FL
Katie Porter, CA                     Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR
Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM           Russ Fulcher, ID
Melanie A. Stansbury, NM             Pete Stauber, MN
Nydia M. Velazquez, NY               Thomas P. Tiffany, WI
Diana DeGette, CO                    Jerry L. Carl, AL
Julia Brownley, CA                   Matthew M. Rosendale, Sr., MT
Debbie Dingell, MI                   Blake D. Moore, UT
A. Donald McEachin, VA               Yvette Herrell, NM
Darren Soto, FL                      Lauren Boebert, CO
Michael F. Q. San Nicolas, GU        Jay Obernolte, CA
Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, IL         Cliff Bentz, OR
Ed Case, HI                          Vacancy
Betty McCollum, MN
Steve Cohen, TN
Paul Tonko, NY
Rashida Tlaib, MI
Lori Trahan, MA

                     David Watkins, Staff Director
                       Luis Urbina, Chief Counsel
               Vivian Moeglein, Republican Staff Director
                   http://naturalresources.house.gov
                               
                               ------                                

                              CONTENTS

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing held on Tuesday, March 8, 2022...........................     1

Statement of Members:

    Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Arizona...........................................     2
        Prepared statement of....................................     3
    Westerman, Hon. Bruce, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Arkansas..........................................     4

Statement of Witnesses:

Panel I

    Baker, Melvin J., Chairman, Southern Ute Tribal Council, 
      Ignacio, Colorado..........................................    18
        Prepared statement of....................................    20
    Bowekaty, Hon. Carleton, Lieutenant Governor, Pueblo of Zuni; 
      Co-Chair, Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition, Zuni, New 
      Mexico.....................................................    14
        Prepared statement of....................................    16
    Sams, Hon. Charles ``Chuck'', III, Director, National Park 
      Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC...     6
        Prepared statement of....................................     8
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    12

Panel II

    DeCoteau, Aja, Executive Director, Columbia River Inter-
      Tribal Fish Commission, Portland, Oregon...................    51
        Prepared statement of....................................    53

    Desautel, Cody, President, Intertribal Timber Council, 
      Portland, Oregon...........................................    63
        Prepared statement of....................................    65
    Kiel, Doug, Assistant Professor, Department of History, 
      Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois................    48
        Prepared statement of....................................    50
    Washburn, Kevin, Dean and Professor of Law, University of 
      Iowa College of Law, Iowa City, Iowa.......................    56
        Prepared statement of....................................    58




 
  OVERSIGHT HEARING ON EXAMINING THE HISTORY OF FEDERAL LANDS AND THE 
                  DEVELOPMENT OF TRIBAL CO-MANAGEMENT

                              ----------                              


                         Tuesday, March 8, 2022

                     U.S. House of Representatives

                     Committee on Natural Resources

                             Washington, DC

                              ----------                              


    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., via 
WebEx, Hon. Raul M. Grijalva [Chairman of the Committee] 
presiding.
    Present: Representatives Grijalva, Sablan, Huffman, 
Lowenthal, Gallego, Porter, Leger Fernandez, Stansbury, Soto, 
Garcia, McCollum, Tlaib; Westerman, Young, Graves, Hice, 
Gonzalez-Colon, Fulcher, Stauber, Rosendale, Moore, Herrell, 
Boebert, Obernolte, and Bentz.

    The Chairman. Thank you very much. The Committee on Natural 
Resources will come to order.
    The Committee is meeting today to hear testimony on 
examining the history of Federal lands and the development of 
tribal co-management.
    Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at 
this hearing are limited to the Chair and the Ranking Minority 
Member, or their designees. This will allow us to hear from the 
witnesses sooner and help Members keep to their schedules.
    Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that all other Members' 
opening statements be part of the hearing record if they are 
submitted to the Clerk by 5 p.m. today, or at the close of this 
hearing, whichever comes first.
    Hearing no objections, so ordered.
    Without objection, the Chair may also declare a recess 
subject to the call of the Chair.
    As described in the hearing notice, statements, documents, 
or motions must be submitted to the electronic repository at 
[email protected].
    Additionally, please note that, as always, Members are 
responsible for their own microphones. As with our in-person 
meetings, Members can only be muted by staff to avoid 
inadvertent background noise.
    Finally, Members or witnesses experiencing technical 
problems should inform the Committee staff immediately.
    I will now recognize myself to make an opening statement.

  STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAUL M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
               CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA

    The Chairman. Hello, and welcome to the House Natural 
Resources Committee hearing entitled, ``Examining the History 
of Federal Lands and the Development of Tribal Co-Management.'' 
I appreciate our Committee members joining us today and hope 
that we will have an insightful and productive hearing. Today's 
hearing is one that I believe is long overdue--both at the 
Committee level and in Congress.
    Fundamentally, tribal co-management provides an opportunity 
for Indigenous people to work alongside Federal agencies to 
manage Federal lands and resources. Indigenous perspectives are 
uniquely significant for cultural preservation and can improve 
management practices, particularly when coupled with Indigenous 
traditional ecological knowledge. Through tribal co-management 
we can lift the Indigenous presence, while continuing to meet 
our obligations to protect the climate and conserve Federal 
lands.
    During my time as Chair, this Committee has consistently 
worked to elevate the presence of tribal governments in the 
Federal decision-making process by strengthening tribal 
sovereignty and reaffirming tribal self-determination. The 
expansion of tribal co-management on Federal lands further 
builds on that essential work.
    But if we want to begin the conversation about tribal co-
management meaningfully, first we must acknowledge and come to 
terms with the country's history. The European colonization of 
this continent and the founding of this country are built on 
the dispossession of land from Indigenous Peoples by force, 
coercion, or bad faith legal arrangements. Indigenous Peoples, 
the original caretakers of these lands and resources, were 
forcibly displaced. Congress must formally acknowledge that the 
lands we now know as the United States are the ancestral 
homelands of millions of Indigenous Peoples who were killed, 
removed, or relocated.
    It is equally important to acknowledge that while many 
tribes suffered and were exterminated through these acts, many 
tribes still persist and call these lands home today. As 
uncomfortable as it may be to hear, this is our history and it 
must be considered honestly and respectfully.
    To that end, I plan to introduce the resolution formally 
acknowledging the Federal dispossession of these lands from 
Indigenous communities and calling on the Federal Government to 
include tribal governments and Indigenous traditional 
ecological knowledge in the management of these lands.
    I am working with the Government Accountability Office to 
review how Federal land management agencies work with tribes 
regarding their ancestral lands. I am working with soon-to-be-
introduced legislation with Senator Heinrich from New Mexico 
that would better protect tribal sacred sites.
    While the history of land dispossession and violence can 
never be fully redressed, I believe that there are 
opportunities to bring tribal communities back into the 
management of their ancestral lands. In doing so, we can 
support Indigenous communities, while improving land management 
based on expertise developed since time immemorial.
    I am encouraged by the Biden administration's renewal of 
the White House Tribal Nations Summit, which is focusing on 
protecting tribal sacred sites, incorporating Indigenous 
traditional ecological knowledge, and engaging tribes in land 
management.
    I look forward to working with my colleagues in the 
Administration and Congress to expand and incorporate 
Indigenous knowledge and history in land and resource 
management across the country, especially on our public lands. 
I look forward to this conversation today and hope that the 
insights provided help develop a roadmap for significant 
expansion of tribal co-management.
    I want to make it clear that today is a starting point, and 
efforts to expand co-management must continue in the weeks, 
months, and years ahead.
    Before we turn to our panel, I would like to thank our 
witnesses for their expert testimony and appreciate their being 
with us today.
    I want to recognize the tribal leaders testifying: 
Lieutenant Governor Carleton Bowekaty from the Pueblo of Zuni 
and Chair Melvin Baker from Southern Ute.
    I also want to acknowledge that we are honored to have a 
historic Administration witness, National Park Service Director 
Charles F. Sams. Director Sams is the first Senate-confirmed 
Park Service Director in nearly 5 years and the first tribal 
citizen to lead the agency. He is an enrolled member of the 
Cayuse and Walla Walla of the Confederated Tribes of the 
Umatilla Indian Reservation.
    So, thank you all again for your participation today. I 
sincerely look forward to the conversation.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Grijalva follows:]
 Prepared Statement of the Hon. Raul M. Grijalva, Chair, Committee on 
                           Natural Resources
    Today's hearing is one that I believe is long overdue--both in this 
Committee and Congress.
    Fundamentally, tribal co-management provides an opportunity for 
Indigenous Peoples to work alongside Federal agencies to manage Federal 
lands and resources. Indigenous perspectives are uniquely significant 
for cultural preservation and can improve management practices, 
particularly when coupled with Indigenous traditional ecological 
knowledge.
    Through tribal co-management, we can lift up Indigenous voices, 
while continuing to meet our obligations to protect the climate and 
conserve Federal lands.
    During my time as Chair, this Committee has consistently worked to 
elevate the voices of tribal governments in the Federal decision-making 
process by strengthening tribal sovereignty and reaffirming tribal 
self-determination. The expansion of tribal co-management on Federal 
lands further builds on that essential work.
    But if we want to begin this conversation about tribal co-
management meaningfully, first, we must acknowledge and come to terms 
with this country's history. The European colonization of this 
continent and the founding of this country are built on the 
dispossession of land from Indigenous Peoples by force, coercion, and 
bad faith legal agreements. Indigenous Peoples, the original caretakers 
of these lands and resources, were forcibly displaced.
    Congress must formally acknowledge that the lands we now know as 
the United States are the ancestral homelands of millions of Indigenous 
Peoples, who were killed, removed, or relocated. It is equally 
important to acknowledge that, while many tribes suffered and were 
exterminated through these acts, many tribes still persist and call 
these lands home today.
    As uncomfortable as it may be to hear, this is our history, and it 
must be considered honestly and respectfully.
    To that end, I plan to introduce a resolution formally 
acknowledging the Federal dispossession of these lands from Indigenous 
communities and calling on the Federal Government to include tribal 
governments and Indigenous traditional ecological knowledge in the 
management of these lands.
    I am working with the Government Accountability Office to review 
how Federal land management agencies work with tribes on their 
ancestral lands. And I am working on soon-to-be-introduced legislation 
with Senator Martin Heinrich (NM) that would better protect tribal 
sacred sites.
    While the history of land dispossession and violence can never be 
fully redressed, I believe there are opportunities to bring tribal 
communities back into the management of their ancestral homelands. In 
doing so, we can support Indigenous communities while improving land 
management based on expertise developed since time immemorial.
    I'm encouraged by the Biden administration's renewal of the White 
House Tribal Nations Summit, with its focus on protecting tribal sacred 
sites, incorporating Indigenous traditional ecological knowledge, and 
engaging tribes in land management.
    I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Administration 
and Congress to expand and incorporate Indigenous knowledge and history 
in land and resource management across the country, especially on our 
public lands.
    I'm grateful to have the opportunity to host this conversation and 
hope the insights provided help develop a roadmap for the significant 
expansion of tribal co-management. But I want to be clear: today is a 
starting point, and efforts to expand co-management must continue in 
the weeks, months, and years ahead.

                                 ______
                                 

    The Chairman. I yield back and recognize our Ranking 
Member, Mr. Westerman, for his opening statement.
    Sir, you are recognized.

  STATEMENT OF THE HON. BRUCE WESTERMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS

    Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the 
witnesses for being here today.
    While the subject of today's hearing is important to me and 
many who are on this WebEx, there is a subject that is being 
ignored that is far more important that we should all be 
discussing. We should be having hearings on this until we get 
to a resolution, and that is the unprecedented energy crisis 
that our country and the world is facing right now. This 
Committee has jurisdiction over many of the resources that 
could be used to solve this energy crisis, and I would consider 
it a dereliction of duty to have a hearing and not to bring 
this up.
    And Mr. Chair, until we start working on this, we won't be 
quiet about it. It is an issue that needs to be addressed. The 
energy policy that this country has right now is not reliable, 
not reliable in the sense of technology, not reliable in where 
our energy is sourced from, it is not affordable, and it is 
certainly not cleaner, or as clean as it could be if we were 
serious about energy policy.
    This is affecting everyday Americans. With prices at the 
pump at $4.10 a gallon and going up, it is only starting. As we 
all know, energy is a component to the cost of everything. It 
is time to start planting crops in our country, and the cost of 
fertilizer is directly linked to the cost of natural gas. So, 
we are going to see food prices go up and probably even food 
shortages because of a lack of good energy policy.
    The Administration should be talking to domestic producers, 
and we should be facilitating that on how we increase 
production, not just banning oil and energy from Russia and 
then turning around and negotiating with countries like Iran 
and Venezuela to fill in that gap.
    Contrary to claims about increases in renewable power and 
more electric cars on the road, this will not solve the energy 
crisis. We have seen the disastrous results of our European 
allies who have shut down their own supplies of reliable 
baseload power in an attempt to rapidly transition to 
renewables.
    Mr. Chairman, I was in Germany back before I got into 
Congress, when I was doing engineering work 10 years ago, 
riding around with German engineers, and them being critical of 
the political decisions that were being made to shut down their 
nuclear power plants. Today, Germany is getting 44 percent of 
their power from fossil fuels. They are supposed to be the 
example to the world on how to do renewable energy. But we see 
the bind that they are in right now and their dependence on 
Russia.
    We have to develop our domestic energy resources, and this 
Committee needs to be having hearings on this crisis and how 
increasing production on Federal lands and waters can directly 
address the challenges we face. This crisis is only going to 
get worse if we fail to react.
    I would like to talk a little bit about the subject of 
today's hearing on tribal co-management. I think we can learn a 
lot from tribes. As I have traveled around the country and met 
with tribes, and I have seen how they manage their land, it is 
in stark contrast to the way our Federal Government manages 
lands. If we would work more closely with tribes, if we would 
truly adhere to the Indian Self-Determination and Education 
Assistance Act, if we would be more aggressive with the Tribal 
Forest Protection Act, then we would see not only better 
management on tribal lands, but we could learn from that on how 
we manage our Federal lands.
    We are getting ready for another unprecedented fire season, 
and we are to blame for that. We know what to do, but we are 
not doing it. We are continuing to tie up management 
activities. Fortunately, we have tribes and state governments 
and private landowners who are managing properly, and they can 
show the way that we need to manage.
    And I also want to acknowledge two of our witnesses joining 
us here from the Southern Ute Tribe and the Intertribal Timber 
Council, who both support responsibly developing natural 
resources, while also protecting the environment. There is a 
perspective here that I, as I said, I think we can all learn 
from. And I look forward to the testimony today.
    But Mr. Chairman, I request that we start having hearings 
on domestic energy production and how this Committee can be 
proactive in getting more of our energy resources--and not just 
energy, but minerals and elements, as well--into the 
marketplace.
    I look forward to the discussion, and I yield back.

    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Westerman. I think the war in 
Ukraine and our dependence on oil and gas are both issues of 
great national concern. But we are here to recognize this 
country's history of dispossession of tribal communities and to 
consider opportunities to expand tribal co-management of 
ancestral lands.
    And I know my colleagues on my side of the aisle are not 
about avoiding the conversation, sir. There is nothing to 
protect and any history to look at, particularly the previous 4 
years of the previous administration, in terms of policies in 
this direction.
    But we can go forward, and I will be glad to have our 
mutual staffs talk about that and structure something that is 
both informative and just doesn't deal with the gas and oil 
industries talking points, which seems to be to use the crisis 
of Ukraine in a very shameless way, to try to push a drilling 
wholly only agenda for our Federal lands. I think that merits 
discussion, and I look forward to seeing if we could structure 
that.
    With that, we can begin with the testimony of our 
witnesses.
    Let me remind the witnesses that under our Committee Rules, 
they must limit their oral statements to 5 minutes and that 
their entire statement will appear in the hearing record.
    When you begin, the timer will start, and it will turn 
orange when you have 1 minute left and red when your time is 
expired.
    I recommend that Members and witnesses joining remotely use 
the grid view, so that they may lock their timer onto the 
screen.
    After your testimony is over, please mute yourself so that 
we don't have any background noise. And I will allow the entire 
panel to testify before we begin questioning the witnesses.
    Let me begin with the testimony from the Honorable Charles 
F. Sams, Director of the National Park Service.
    Director Sams, you are invited to share your testimony, 
sir. You are recognized.

 STATEMENT OF THE HON. CHARLES ``CHUCK'' SAMS, III, DIRECTOR, 
    NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 
                         WASHINGTON, DC

    Mr. Sams. [Speaking Native language.] I am Chuck Sams, 
National Park Service Director. Good morning, Chairman 
Grijalva, Ranking Member Westerman, and members of the 
Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss tribal co-
management of Federal lands.
    I would like to submit our full statement for the record 
and summarize the Department's views.
    I am the first tribally enrolled member to lead the 
National Park Service. I come from the Umatilla Indian 
Reservation in Oregon, where I am Cayuse and Walla Walla, with 
blood ties to the Cocopah and Yankton Sioux. I share the Biden-
Harris administration's commitment to strengthening the role of 
Native American tribes, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiian 
organizations, and I will focus my comments today on 
cooperative stewardship of our national parks.
    Last November, Secretary Haaland and Secretary of 
Agriculture Vilsack issued a Joint Secretarial Order on 
Fulfilling the Trust Responsibility to Indian Tribes in the 
Stewardship of Federal Lands and Waters. This Secretary's Order 
recognizes that Federal lands were previously owned and managed 
by Indian tribes, contain cultural and natural resources of 
significance to tribes, and are sometimes in areas where tribes 
have reserved rights to hunt, fish, gather, and pray, pursuant 
to treaties and agreements with the United States.
    The Secretary's Order also directs agencies to increase 
opportunities for tribes to participate in their traditional 
stewardship of present-day Federal lands and the integration of 
Indigenous knowledge into Federal management. As Director of 
the National Park Service, I am committed to increasing co-
stewardship with tribes in the interest of all peoples of the 
United States.
    The co-stewardship of parks by the NPS and tribes takes 
many forms, including co-management obligations in law, 
collaboration and cooperative agreements, and self-governance 
agreements. Currently, four parks in the National Park System 
have co-management authority with tribes: Canyon de Chelly 
National Monument, which is located within the Navajo Nation in 
Arizona; Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve in Southeast 
Alaska; Grand Portage National Monument, which is located 
within the Grand Portage Indian Reservation in Minnesota; and 
Big Cypress National Preserve in Florida, which I was very 
fortunate enough to visit a couple of weeks ago.
    One example of co-management is the traditional harvest of 
gull eggs by the Huna Tlingit in Glacier Bay National Park, a 
practice that has ensured intergenerational transmission of 
ancestral traditions and strengthens the Huna Tlingit ties to 
their homeland.
    Another example is the co-management of the Grand Portage 
National Monument by the NPS and the Grand Portage Band of 
Chippewa Indians. The project in the park and on the 
reservation includes preservation of historic structures, 
ethnobotanical restoration, wildland fire activities, and 
archeological surveys. Most NPS working relationships with 
Tribal Nations are collaborative or cooperative opportunities.
    To highlight just two examples:
    The Nisqually Tribe is currently collaborating with Mount 
Rainier National Park to publish a report on traditionally 
harvested plants with recommendations for conducting gathering 
in a sustainable manner.
    At Acadia National Park, a multi-year project with the 
Wabanaki Nation of Maine centers on traditional gathering of 
sweetgrass within the park. This project incorporates centuries 
of traditional ecological knowledge, as well as cultural 
protocols to assert Indigenous sovereignty and natural and 
cultural resource management on ancestral lands.
    The NPS also negotiates with self-governance tribes for 
annual funding agreements, or AFAs. As authorized under the 
Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, 
federally recognized tribes that are traditionally associated 
with a park may carry out services such as research, fire 
protection, interpretation, and educational programing and 
maintenance functions.
    Since the NPS began entering into AFAs with self-governance 
tribes, tribal communities have received over $38 million. To 
highlight one example, the Yurok Tribe has an AFA at Redwood 
National and State Parks. The Yurok Youth Trail Crew will 
assist the park with performing repairs on the California 
Coastal Trail. The crew will also participate in resource 
stewardship, education opportunities, gain exposure, and 
various resource management operations, and receive orientation 
to career opportunities within the park system.
    Finally, some tribes have specific kinds of statutory 
authority related to national parks. For example, the Nez Perce 
Tribe owns and operates 29 of the sites that comprise Nez Perce 
National Historic Park. While the NPS owns and manages the 
other 9 sites, the park is authorized in its enabling 
legislation to cooperate with the Nez Perce Tribe through 
research and to provide interpretive services.
    Although the NPS has entered into a number of co-
management, cooperative, collaborative, and self-governance 
agreements, we still have many opportunities to expand the use 
and scope of these agreements with interested tribes, pursuant 
to the Secretary's Order 3403. With the dedicated professionals 
of the NPS, I look forward to continuing to engage, 
collaborate, and enter agreements with tribes.
    Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member Westerman, thank you for 
inviting me to testify before you today. I would be happy to 
answer any questions that you or other members of the Committee 
may have. Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Sams follows:]
  Prepared Statement of Charles F. Sams III, Director, National Park 
                Service, U.S. Department of the Interior
    Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member Westerman, and members of the 
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss Tribal co-
management of federal lands. President Biden and Secretary Haaland are 
committed to improving the stewardship of our Nation's lands and waters 
by strengthening the role of Tribal communities in federal land 
management.
    I am the first Tribally enrolled member to lead the National Park 
Service (NPS). I come from the Umatilla Indian Reservation in Northeast 
Oregon where I am Cayuse and Walla Walla with blood ties to the Cocopah 
and Yankton Sioux. As the 19th Director of the NPS, I share the Biden-
Harris Administration's commitment to strengthening the role of Native 
American Tribes, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiian Organizations, and 
will focus my comments today on the NPS's cooperative stewardship of 
our national parks.
    The NPS preserves unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and 
values of 423 parks, 23 national scenic and national historic trails, 
and 64 wild and scenic rivers, for the enjoyment, education, and 
inspiration of this and future generations. In addition to welcoming 
over 300 million visitors each year to these special places, we 
administer nationwide programs to preserve local history, celebrate 
local heritage, and create opportunities for close to home recreation. 
The NPS collaborates with a variety of Tribal nations, partners, and 
communities, to carry out our important mission.
    The Biden Administration is committed to strengthening the role of 
Tribal communities in federal land management, honoring Tribal 
sovereignty and supporting the priorities of Tribal Nations. On 
November 15, 2021, Secretary Haaland and Secretary of Agriculture 
Vilsack issued Secretary's Order 3403: Joint Secretarial Order on 
Fulfilling the Trust Responsibility to Indian Tribes in the Stewardship 
of Federal Lands and Waters. This Secretary's Order recognizes that 
federal lands were previously owned and managed by Indian Tribes and 
that these lands and waters contain cultural and natural resources of 
significance and value to Indian Tribes and their citizens; including 
sacred religious sites, burial sites, wildlife, and sources of 
Indigenous foods and medicines. In addition, many of those federal 
lands and waters lie within areas where Indian Tribes have the reserved 
right to hunt, fish, gather, and pray pursuant to ratified treaties and 
agreements with the United States.
    The Secretary's Order also directs agencies to increase 
opportunities for Tribes to participate in their traditional 
stewardship of present-day federal lands and waters and the integration 
of thousands of years of Indigenous knowledge and sustainability 
practices into federal management and operations, subject to the 
interest of each Tribe.
    The Department, including the NPS, recognizes and values Tribes' 
thousands of years of traditional ecological knowledge of the lands the 
Department administers. Our collaboration with Tribes, through co-
stewardship and the incorporation of tribal traditional ecological 
knowledge into federal management practices, strengthens the management 
of the nation's public lands. It also ensures a continued connection 
between Tribes and their culturally significant and sacred sites, many 
of which are located within national park boundaries.
    As Director of the NPS, I am committed to seeking ways to increase 
opportunities for co-stewardship with Tribes in the interest of all 
peoples of the United States and in accordance with the laws and 
policies governing the NPS. The NPS works cooperatively with Tribes in 
the stewardship of national parks. This co-stewardship takes many 
forms, including co-management obligations in law, collaborative and 
cooperative agreements, and self-governance agreements.
    The NPS is implementing the Secretary's Order in a variety of ways. 
First, together with the Department as a whole, the NPS is reviewing 
its sources of authority to enter into the full range of co-stewardship 
agreements, inclusive of but not limited to formal co-management. The 
NPS is also assessing its Tribal consultation processes to ensure that 
parks and regional offices have the necessary support and guidance to 
work with Tribal Nations on these agreements and to enhance Tribal 
member opportunities to work in and connect to national park sites that 
hold significant cultural and spiritual importance, consistent with 
President Biden and Secretary Haaland's direction on meaningful 
consultation.
Park Specific Tribal Co-Management Agreements

    There are currently four parks in the national park system that 
have co-management authority with Tribes. The four parks are Canyon de 
Chelly National Monument, which is located within the boundaries of the 
Navajo Nation in Arizona; Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve in 
Southeast Alaska; Grand Portage National Monument, which is located 
within the boundaries of the Grand Portage Indian Reservation in 
northern Minnesota; and Big Cypress National Preserve in Florida, which 
I was fortunate enough to visit a couple of weeks ago.
    Canyon de Chelly National Monument is located entirely within the 
Navajo Reservation and the monument's enabling legislation preserves 
some land and mineral rights of the Navajo as well as the preferential 
right to provide some visitor services. An Agreement for Cooperative 
Management of Canyon de Chelly was negotiated and signed by the Navajo 
Nation President, NPS Park Superintendent, and Bureau of Indian Affairs 
(BIA) Regional Area Director. This process involved extensive Tribal 
consultation and community involvement. Development of a joint/co-
management plan is anticipated to begin in FY2023 and will include 
determining how joint management will work. A model plan has been 
proposed based on the success realized at Uluru-Kata Tjuta National 
Park in Australia, which is operated with a board that makes major 
decisions. This board consists of park personnel and community members 
and is advised by three advisory committees, all of which include local 
Indigenous people.
    For centuries, the Huna Tlingit harvested gull eggs at rookeries 
scattered throughout the recently deglaciated islands of lower Glacier 
Bay, now located within Glacier Bay National Park. Egg harvests not 
only provided a healthy spring food source, but also served as a 
mechanism for families to bond through intergenerational food harvests. 
These traditional harvests were curtailed in the 1960s when the NPS 
began enforcing the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and related NPS policies 
that prohibited egg harvest. In recent years, the NPS and the Hoonah 
Indian Association collaborated on a range of programs designed to 
encourage and reinvigorate cultural activities within the park, 
including the harvest of gull eggs. With the support of both the NPS 
and the Hoonah Indian Association, in 2014, Congress passed legislation 
authorizing harvest of glaucous-winged gull eggs by the Huna Tlingit in 
their traditional homeland of Glacier Bay National Park. Hoonah Indian 
Association Tribal members harvested gull eggs in Glacier Bay in 2020 
and 2021 in accordance with cooperatively developed sustainable harvest 
plans, returning hundreds of eggs to community elders. This 
collaborative effort has ensured intergenerational transmission of 
ancestral traditions, strengthened Huna Tlingit ties to their 
traditional homeland, and bridged relationships between the Tribe and 
NPS.
    Grand Portage National Monument is co-managed by the Grand Portage 
Band of Chippewa Indians and the NPS, as provided through the 
monument's enabling legislation. The NPS and Tribe have had a unique 
and special relationship over the last 20 years. The Tribe donated the 
land that became the park, which sits in the middle of its reservation. 
Since 1999, self-governance annual funding agreements for maintenance, 
interpretation, and resource management positions and projects have 
been negotiated between the Tribe and NPS totaling over $27 million. In 
2018, the NPS and the Grand Portage Band created the Grand Portage 
Conservation Crew. This youth organization now provides resource 
management at Grand Portage National Monument, Grand Portage Indian 
Reservation, and Isle Royale National Park. Examples of co-management 
practices and projects include preservation of historic structures, 
ethnobotanical restoration, construction of a LEED platinum dormitory, 
archeological excavation at the Monument; wildland fire activities, 
timber stand improvement, and archeological surveys on the Reservation; 
and moose browse surveys and exclosure construction on Isle Royale. The 
stewardship of Grand Portage National Monument exemplifies how 
successful co-management can be, while infusing valuable dollars into 
the local Tribal economy.
    The fourth park, Big Cypress National Preserve, through its 
enabling legislation, provides for usual and customary rights to the 
Seminole Tribe of Florida and the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of 
Florida, as well as right of first refusal to provide visitor services. 
Although the Tribes have the authority to enter into co-management with 
the Preserve, neither Tribe has yet expressed interest in pursuing co-
management agreements and there are currently none in place.
Collaboration and Cooperative Agreements

    The majority of NPS working relationships with Tribal Nations are 
collaborative or cooperative opportunities rather than co-management 
and are supported through official agreements, often with accompanying 
Tribal Council resolutions. The NPS has approximately 80 agreements of 
this type in place, and we expect that number to increase. Two examples 
of these widely varied agreements include the following.
    The Nisqually Tribe is currently collaborating with Mount Rainier 
National Park to publish the report Plants, Tribal Traditions, and the 
Mountain Practices and Effects of the Nisqually Tribal Plant Gathering 
at Mount Rainier National Park. The report will contain the results of 
five years of traditional plant gathering research on three species 
traditionally harvested by Nisqually tribal members on Mount Rainier. 
It will offer summary considerations and recommendations for 
administering traditional plant gathering activities in a manner that 
minimizes impact to harvested plants and associated plant communities. 
The park's consultation with the Cowlitz Tribe and Yakama Nation in 
developing the Ohanapecosh Visitor Center exhibits will give visitors 
historical and contemporary context of the traditionally associated 
Taidnapam. The park's consultation with the Nisqually on interpretive 
programs has resulted in the document Mount Rainier Interpretive Themes 
and the Nisqually Tribe, a great resource for developing interpretive 
programs.
    Acadia National Park has been involved in a multi-year project with 
the Wabanaki Nations of Maine for traditional gathering of sweetgrass 
within the park. The interdisciplinary work focuses on Wabanaki 
stewardship approaches through centuries of learned traditional 
ecological knowledge, as well as cultural protocols to assert 
Indigenous sovereignty in natural and cultural resource management on 
ancestral lands. This research project aims to provide a template of 
culturally appropriate engagement between Native American gatherers and 
national parks. The results of the project have proven how effective 
incorporation of traditional ecological knowledge can be, how plant 
gathering has a positive impact on the plant colonies when gathered in 
a culturally appropriate traditional manner, and how beneficial it is 
to include this knowledge at the initial stages of a project.
Indian Self-Determination Education and Assistance Act (ISDEAA) 
        Agreements

    In addition to co-management and collaborative and cooperative 
agreements, the NPS has made a concerted effort in negotiating with 
Self-Governance Tribes for annual funding agreements (AFA), as 
authorized under the Indian Self-Determination Education and Assistance 
Act (ISDEAA). The ISDEAA, as amended, recognized the obligation of the 
United States to respond to Tribal self-determination in education and 
other federal services to Indian communities. Under Title IV, Tribal 
Self-Governance, of the ISDEAA, any non-BIA program, service, function, 
or activity that is administered by the Department of the Interior that 
is ``otherwise available to Indian Tribes or Indians,'' can be 
administered by a Tribe through a self-governance funding agreement. 
These include programs, services, functions, and activities or portions 
thereof that are of ``special geographic, historical or cultural 
significance'' to a Self-Governance Tribe.
    On an annual basis, the NPS works with the Office of Self 
Governance to publish a list in the Federal Register of potential 
activities and locations of national parks with close proximity to 
Self-Governance Tribes that may be eligible for inclusion in funding 
agreements for the upcoming fiscal year. Elements of programs that may 
be eligible for a Self-Governance AFA include resource management 
research and activities, planning documents, fire protection, housing 
construction and rehabilitation, interpretation and educational 
programming, maintenance functions and services, road and trail repair 
or rehabilitation. Federally recognized Tribes that are traditionally 
associated and have cultural, historical, or geographical significance 
to a park in the National Park System may initiate the request to enter 
into negotiations for an AFA. Funds are transferred through AFAs to the 
Tribe to carry out the agreed upon programs, services, functions, and 
activities. Overall, since the NPS began entering into AFAs with Self-
Governance Tribes, the Tribal communities have received an aggregate 
amount of over $38 million. The following are examples of these AFAs.
    In addition to the earlier mentioned co-management of Grand Portage 
National Monument, the National Monument entered into an AFA with the 
Grand Portage Chippewa Tribe for 35 total projects plus the base 
agreement to do all maintenance and construction work at the National 
Monument. This includes project work at Isle Royale National Park.
    The Yurok Tribe has an AFA for three projects at Redwood National 
and State Parks. The Yurok Youth Trail Crew, established through the 
Public Land Corps program, will assist Redwood National and State Parks 
with performing repairs to failing and damaged trail surfaces on the 
Crescent Beach and Klamath sections of the California Coastal Trail. 
This work will bring approximately three miles of trail back to 
acceptable trail standards and help reduce the park's deferred 
maintenance and repair backlog. The crew will participate in resource 
stewardship education opportunities, gain exposure to various resource 
management operations, and receive orientation to career opportunities 
within the park system.
    River Raisin National Battlefield Park entered into AFAs with the 
Wyandotte Nation for educational programming, visitor center 
operations, volunteer program support, maintenance, research, and to 
expand youth kayaking and educational programs. Additionally, the 
Wyandotte Nation will complete a special history study with 78 
federally recognized Tribes on their connections to the battlefield and 
its aftermath. The study will provide valuable information which will 
be used in the future in development of the park's interpretive 
stories.
    In October 2019, Valles Caldera National Preserve entered into a 
multi-year funding agreement with the Pueblo of Santa Clara for cyclic 
road maintenance on 54 miles of public and administrative use dirt 
roads within the preserve.
Additional Statutory Frameworks for Tribal Engagement

    Some Tribes have specific kinds of authority in or related to 
national parks provided by statute. Nez Perce National Historical Park, 
in parts of Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington, consists of 38 
sites. The NPS owns and manages nine of those sites and the Nez Perce 
Tribe owns and operates the others. The park is authorized in its 
enabling legislation to cooperate with the Nez Perce Tribe through 
research and to provide interpretive services. The park partners with 
the Nez Perce Tribe, the Confederated Tribes of the Colville 
Reservation, and the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian 
Reservation.
    In 2000, the Timbisha Shoshone Homeland Act, based on a study by 
the NPS identifying lands suitable for a reservation for the Tribe, 
transferred lands within Death Valley National Park to the Timbisha 
Shoshone Tribe. This law also created a ``Timbisha Shoshone Natural and 
Cultural Preservation Area'' consisting of NPS and BLM lands and 
included other provisions pertaining to access and Tribal cooperative 
management with the NPS and BLM.
    Since 1964, the Miccosukee Tribe lived and governed their own 
affairs on the northern edge of Everglades National Park through NPS 
permits. In 1998, legislation was passed to replace the special use 
permit with a legal framework under which the Tribe could live 
permanently and govern their own affairs in a modern community within 
park boundaries.
    Although the NPS has entered into a number of co-management, 
cooperative, collaborative, and self-governance agreements, we still 
have many opportunities to expand the use and scope of these agreements 
with interested Tribes pursuant to Secretary's Order 3403. We recently 
reestablished a dedicated national Office of Native American Affairs, 
which reports directly to me, and I am working to ensure that that 
office is appropriately staffed.
    The National Park Service is a very special agency with a timeless 
mission that is symbiotic with Tribes: to protect and preserve our 
resources and to inspire current and future generations. I am impressed 
with the dedication and skill of the NPS's workforce and look forward 
to continuing to work with these professionals as we engage, 
collaborate, and enter into agreements with Tribes.
    Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member Westerman, thank you again for 
inviting me to testify before you today. I would be happy to answer any 
questions that you or other members of the Committee may have.

                                 ______
                                 

  Questions Submitted for the Record to Director Charles F. Sams III, 
                    Director, National Park Service

             Questions Submitted by Representative Grijalva

    Question 1. During the hearing, Director Sams mentioned that the 
National Park Service (NPS) is working with DOI to examine 
opportunities to expand tribal co-management under existing 
authorities. Pending the completion of that assessment:

    (1a). What additional authorities does NPS require to implement 
tribal co-management effectively?

    Answer. One authority that could potentially improve the NPS's 
ability to implement tribal co-management is the cooperative management 
agreement authority found in 54 USC 101703. This authority allows the 
Secretary to enter into agreements with State and local governments to 
acquire goods and services in order to create a more effective and 
efficient delivery of service. National parks across the country have 
used this authority to provide a variety of services from snowplow 
operations to transit. H.R. 6442, which the House Natural Resources 
Committee has approved, would expand cooperative management agreement 
authority to include Tribes. The Department believes this authority 
could yield substantial benefits for the both the NPS and our tribal 
partners, which is consistent with Secretary's Order 3403, Joint 
Secretarial Order on Fulfilling the Trust Responsibility to Indian 
Tribes in the Stewardship of Federal Lands and Waters, and NPS Policy 
Memorandum 22-03, Fulling the National Park Service Trust 
Responsibility to Indian Tribes, Alaska Natives, and Hawaiians in the 
Stewardship of Federal Lands and Waters.

    (1b). Is additional funding necessary to expand tribal co-
management?

    Answer. Congress may want to consider expanding funding streams 
available for the NPS to increase its engagement with Tribes in co-
management opportunities.

    (1c). Please provide information on the appropriate levels and 
accounts if additional funding is necessary.

    Answer. We recognize it is the role of Congress to determine 
appropriate funding levels.

    Question 2. Director Sams, you mentioned that NPS is expanding the 
use of agency funding agreements to expand tribal co-management across 
NPS units.

    (2a). Can you provide additional details on these efforts?

    Answer. The NPS's commitment to strengthening nation-to-nation 
relationships with Indian and Alaska Native Tribes and supporting 
Tribal self-governance through cooperative agreements and service 
contracts is reflected in Policy Memorandum 22-03, Fulfilling the 
National Park Service Trust Responsibility to Indian Tribes in the 
Stewardship of Federal Lands and Waters. On an annual basis, the NPS 
works with the Office of Self Governance to publish a list in the 
Federal Register of potential activities and locations of national 
parks with close proximity to Self-Governance Tribes that may be 
eligible for inclusion in annual funding agreements (AFAs) for the 
upcoming fiscal year. Elements of programs that may be eligible for a 
Self-Governance AFA include resource management research and 
activities, planning documents, fire protection, housing construction 
and rehabilitation, interpretation and educational programming, 
maintenance functions and services, road and trail repair or 
rehabilitation. Federally recognized Tribes that are traditionally 
associated and have cultural, historical, or geographical significance 
to a park in the National Park System may initiate the request to enter 
into negotiations for an AFA. Funds are transferred through AFAs to the 
Tribe to carry out the agreed upon programs, services, functions, and 
activities. Overall, since the NPS began entering into AFAs with Self-
Governance Tribes, the tribal communities have received an aggregate 
amount of over $38 million.

    (2b). Are you aware of similar efforts within other Department of 
the Interior agencies?

    Answer. Other DOI bureaus engage in similar efforts.
    Question 3. Director Sams, you identified the need for additional 
employee education on the Indigenous history of the United States and 
Indigenous connections to current agency resources as an essential next 
step in better integrating Indigenous perspectives at NPS and expanding 
tribal co-management.

    (3a). What efforts is the NPS making to provide staff, both at 
headquarters and in the field, with Indigenous culture and history 
education?

    Answer. The NPS will, in accordance with Secretary's Order 3403, 
and NPS Policy Memorandum 22-03, prioritize and make available training 
for all staff who may be involved in programs and decision making that 
may impact Indian or Alaska Native Tribes, relevant Alaska Native 
entities, or the Native Hawaiian Community to ensure staff have an 
appropriate understanding of applicable laws and policies, treaty 
rights, trust responsibilities, and the Federal relationships with 
Indian and Alaska Native Tribes and the Native Hawaiian Community. Many 
of the parks that have ties to Indigenous cultures are increasing their 
training in Indigenous culture and history in order to help ensure the 
protection of resources associated with those cultures and to 
appropriately interpret the culture and history for park visitors.

    (3b). Is the agency working with other Federal agencies or non-
Federal organizations to plan or provide this training?

    Answer. The NPS encourages continuous learning and skills 
development for staff with ongoing and sustained Federal-Tribal/Alaska 
Native/Native Hawaiian responsibilities and supports formal and 
informal networks of subject matter experts. The NPS encourages and 
supports joint training opportunities with Indian and Alaska Native 
Tribes, the Native Hawaiian Community, and other Indigenous or 
traditionally associated peoples to promote shared understanding, build 
working relationships, and develop best practices for communication and 
collaboration at local, regional, and national levels.

    Question 4. Director Sams, you mentioned that NPS supported the 
work of tribal youth corps programs.

    (4a). Can you share the current state of the Indian Youth Service 
Corps program (as outlined under P.L. 116-9)?

    Answer. The NPS Youth Partnership Program service-wide funding 
source (about $11.5 million annually) supports youth engagement and 
development, including various Indian youth employment, education and 
outdoor recreation projects, across the National Park System. The NPS 
received a funding increase of $700,000 in fiscal year 2020 to develop 
and invest in Indian Youth Service Corps programs. This funding was in 
addition to funds that were already dedicated to natural and cultural 
resource conservation projects involving Native American youth and 
young adults through service and conservation corps organizations.


  Fiscal Year 2022 national funding allocation for Indian Youth Service
                              Corps (IYSC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Number of    Allocation
 Total IYSC Allotment      FY22: $700,000     Participants    of Funds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Traditional Trades     TTAP is recruiting              11      $250,000
 Apprenticeship         IYSC interns for
 Program (TTAP)         Bandelier NM, Casa
                        Grande Ruins NM,
                        Haleakala NP,
                        Southern Four Comers
                        Group of parks, and
                        Zion NP.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Indian Affairs         Funding will support             3      $120,000
 Outreach Internship    2 to 3 long-term
 Program                interns working in
                        support projects led
                        by the NPS Native
                        American Affairs
                        Liaison.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Capacity Building      Native crew members             16      $250,000
 Service Corps          and interns will be
 Programs               helping to preserve
                        and maintain the
                        natural and cultural
                        resources of Navajo
                        NM and Canyon de
                        Chelly NM for 2 to 3
                        months. The program
                        participants will be
                        recruited from the
                        local Navajo
                        communities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Alaska Native          Funding will support                     $80,000
 Internship Program     the continued work
                        at the Ahtna
                        Cultural Center
                        (Wrangell-St Elias
                        NP & Pres) for
                        educational and
                        community outreach
                        with a focus on
                        shared tradition,
                        science and shared
                        stewardship goals.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    (4b). How many individuals are working under these authorities?

    Answer. See chart above.

    (4c). In what NPS units?

    Answer. See chart above.

    (4d). Are there plans to expand these programs to other NPS sites?

    Answer. Yes, as additional funding is available.

    Question 5. In his testimony, one of our other witnesses, Dean 
Washburn, noted that providing contract support costs, engaging in 
consultation regarding tribal co-management opportunities, and 
incentivizing land managers to support co-management would be key steps 
toward expanding tribal co-management.

    (5a). Would any of these suggestions require legislative authority?

    Answer. The NPS is examining its existing authorities in these 
areas. We look forward to continued discussions with the Committee 
about future opportunities and potential changes.

    (5b). Is NPS considering undertaking any of these efforts? If so, 
please provide additional details.

    Answer. The NPS is open to exploring multiple pathways to increase 
engagement with Tribes.

    (5c). How can Congress support these efforts?

    Answer. We appreciate the support of the Committee and look forward 
to continuing conversations regarding tribal engagement and co-
stewardship.

    (5d). Are you aware of efforts at other Federal agencies to act on 
these items?

    Answer. We defer to these other federal agencies to speak on these 
issues.

    (5e). Can you provide a cost estimate for these efforts if they 
were implemented? 

    Answer. Further details would be needed to develop cost estimates.

                                 ______
                                 

    The Chairman. Thank you, Director Sams. It is much 
appreciated. Let me now turn to the Honorable Carleton 
Bowekaty, Lieutenant Governor of the Pueblo of Zuni and Co-
Chair of the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition.
    Lieutenant Governor, you are welcome, and you are invited 
to share your testimony. You are recognized.

 STATEMENT OF THE HON. CARLETON BOWEKATY, LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR, 
 PUEBLO OF ZUNI; CO-CHAIR, BEARS EARS INTER-TRIBAL COALITION, 
                        ZUNI, NEW MEXICO

    Mr. Bowekaty. [Speaking Native language.] Chairman 
Grijalva, Ranking Member Westerman, and respected members of 
the Committee, I am Carleton Bowekaty, Lieutenant Governor of 
the Pueblos of the Zuni Tribe, and the Co-Chair of the Bears 
Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition. On behalf of the people of the 
Zuni Tribe, with support from the Coalition--namely, the Hopi 
Tribe, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, Navajo Nation, and Ute Indian 
Tribe--I want to thank you for inviting me to speak on the 
topic of tribal co-management this morning.
    To begin, I would like to respectfully ask the Committee to 
contemplate how far the arch of Indian relations has been from 
the inhumane policies of Indian removal, bounties for Indian 
scalps, and the painful legacies of boarding schools and 
criminalization of our language and culture from more recent 
policies that really began with the Nixon administration.
    The arch is now bending in a direction that is very 
different. Now, remarkably, presidents and Members of Congress, 
like you, are acknowledging that our centuries of experience 
living and perpetuating the environment around us, developing 
what some people call traditional ecological knowledge, is an 
important resource, not something to be ignored, but instead to 
incorporate in a collaborative effort to care for our public 
lands.
    Our present-day lands are comprised of approximately 
600,000 acres in Western New Mexico and Eastern Arizona. 
However, our aboriginal lands, as well as those of our 18 
sister pueblos in New Mexico and the 5 tribes that comprise our 
coalition, include the lands that comprise the Bears Ears 
National Monument. The lands within Bears Ears are part of our 
history and culture, and even today they play an integral role 
in our traditions and religious ceremonies. It, along with the 
neighboring Grand Staircase-Escalante to the east and Mesa 
Verde to the west, is part of the Colorado Plateau, the region 
where our Zuni ancestors lived before migrating southward into 
present-day New Mexico.
    Zuni has been actively involved in the Bears Ears Inter-
Tribal Coalition since its inception. It is a unique coalition, 
one that has remained focused on our mutual interest in 
ensuring that the unique cultural and natural resources found 
on these ancestral tribal lands are protected and preserved. 
Zuni recognizes that while the Bears Ears lands, though once 
controlled and used exclusively by the tribes in the Southwest, 
are now Federal lands owned by all Americans, however the 
unique historical and cultural ties that Southwestern tribes 
have to Bears Ears must also be recognized and given meaningful 
voice.
    Today, instead of being removed from a landscape to make 
way for a public park, we are being invited back to our 
ancestral homelands to help prepare them and plan for the 
resilient future. We are being asked to apply our traditional 
knowledge to both the natural and human-caused ecological 
challenges, drought, erosion, visitation, et cetera, that are 
growing. What could be a better avenue of restorative justice 
than giving tribes the opportunity to participate in the 
management of lands their ancestors were removed from?
    Tribal co-management of our nation's public lands also 
offers our youth the opportunity to learn about public land 
management. Tribal co-management provides us the means to 
fulfill our obligations to land, our ancestors, and to our 
children and grandchildren.
    With specific regard to Bears Ears, Zuni, along with the 
other four tribes that comprise the Bears Ears Commission, are 
eager to work with the Bureau of Land Management and Forest 
Service to create a management plan for the Monument that we 
will hope will ensure that its unique landscape and cultural 
resources can be seen and experienced.
    I believe that collaborative problem-solving and candid but 
respectful exchanges of perspective will be crucial to co-
management. We realize that the Bureau of Land Management and 
the U.S. Forest Service have developed their own policies and 
approaches to land and resource management, generally 
reflecting the Western point of view. As a coalition, we are 
developing and finalizing a land management plan that is based 
on and reflects upon our collective traditional ecological 
knowledge. We hope that this tribally led combined land 
management plan will be given careful consideration by the 
Federal land management agencies and will be incorporated into 
the Bears Ears Monument management plan and general planning 
process.
    We also hope that the Federal Government will provide us 
with the financial resources to carry on our work as co-
managers. As Dean Washburn recently noted in his University of 
Iowa article, through mechanisms like 638 contracts and 
cooperative agreements, Federal agencies can facilitate 
meaningful tribal participation in the management of public 
lands.
    We are enormously grateful to President Biden for restoring 
the boundaries of the Bears Ears National Monument, and it is 
time we begin the hard work of managing Bears Ears and doing so 
in a manner that we can all be proud of.
    [Speaking Native language.] Elahkwa for your time today. I 
am here because our people care enormously about the Bears Ears 
National Monument and stand united with the Bears Ears 
Coalition--the Hopi Tribe, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, Navajo 
Nation, and Ute Indian Tribe. We, along with our sister pueblos 
in New Mexico and tribes throughout the country, express our 
appreciation for this dialogue and thank you for bringing this 
important topic up for discussion. Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Bowekaty follows:]
 Prepared Statement of the Hon. Carleton R. Bowekaty on Behalf of the 
                               Zuni Tribe
    Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member Westerman, and respected members 
of the Committee, I am Carleton Bowekaty, the Lieutenant Governor of 
the Zuni Tribe and the co-chair of the Bears Ears Intertribal 
Coalition. On behalf of the people of the Zuni Tribe, with support from 
the Coalition, namely, the Hopi Tribe, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, Navajo 
Nation, and Ute Indian Tribe, I want to thank you for inviting me to 
speak on the topic of tribal co-management this morning.
    To begin, I would like to respectfully ask the Committee to 
contemplate how far the arch of Indian relations has bent that while 
the most enduring policies of Indian removal, bounties for Indian 
scalps and the painful legacies of boarding schools and criminalization 
of our language and culture, this arch is now bending in the direction 
that is very different. Now, remarkably, Presidents and Members of 
Congress, like you, are acknowledging that our millennia-long 
experience living and perpetuating the environment around us, what some 
people call ``Traditional Ecological Knowledge'', is an important 
resource, no longer something to erase or subjugate, in the combined 
effort to take care of our shared home.
   the bears ears inter-tribal coalition and the bears ears national 
                                monument
    For contextual purposes, the Zuni Tribe has almost 13,000 members, 
the vast majority of which live on tribal lands in far western New 
Mexico. Our reservation contains 600,000 acres. However, our aboriginal 
lands, as well as those of our 18 sister Pueblos in New Mexico and the 
5 tribes that comprise our Coalition, include the lands that comprise 
the Bears Ears National Monument. The lands within Bears Ears are part 
of our history and culture, and even today they play an integral role 
in our traditions and religious ceremonies. It, along with neighboring 
Grand Staircase Escalante to the east and Mesa Verde to the west, is 
part of the Colorado Plateau, the region where our Zuni ancestors lived 
before migrating southward into present-day New Mexico.
    Zuni has been actively involved in the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal 
Coalition since its inception. It is a unique Coalition, one that has 
remained focused on our mutual interest in ensuring that the remarkable 
cultural and natural resources found on these ancestral tribal lands 
are protected and preserved. Zuni recognizes that while the Bears Ears 
lands, though once controlled and used exclusively by tribes in the 
southwest, are now federal lands, owned by all Americans. However, the 
unique historical and cultural ties that southwestern tribes have to 
Bears Ears must also be recognized and given meaningful voice.
           the bears ears commission and tribal co-management
    Today, instead of being removed from a landscape to make way for a 
public park we are being invited back to our ancestral homelands to 
help repair them and plan for their resilient future. Instead of 
continuing with a policy to erase our language and way of life, we are 
being asked to apply our traditional knowledge to the ecological 
challenges (drought, extinction, erosion, etc.) that are daily becoming 
more prominent and unavoidable. For progressives that like to talk 
about ``restorative justice'' what could be more restorative than 
giving tribes the opportunity to participate in the management of lands 
their ancestors were removed from.
    For conservatives that espouse self-determination and have 
consistently supported legislation providing tribes the tools to be 
self-reliant, creating a career path for our youth to become public 
land managers would establish another pillar in our government's 
economically self-sufficient structure. For the Zuni People, tribal co-
management gives us the means to fulfill our obligations to the land, 
to our ancestors, and to our children and grandchildren.
    In the context of Bears Ears, a place we all agree, regardless of 
political affiliation, is stunningly beautiful with diverse terrain and 
a variety of complex management challenges, from intentional acts of 
vandalism to the exponential growth in tourism, Zuni along with the 
other four tribes that comprise the Bears Ears Commission are eager to 
co-create a Management Plan for the Bears Ears National Monument that 
will create a more durable landscape that can be enjoyed by everyone 
for centuries to come.
    What is crucial to the success of tribal co-management and I hope 
to impress upon you, is that this is a brand new arrangement, together, 
the federal agencies and tribes, are still forging the path to tribal 
co-management and it will be important to problem solve together, 
respond to challenges creatively and fine tune the mechanism so that it 
can function efficiently and mutually support the objectives of each of 
the co-managers. The Bureau of Land Management and the US Forest 
Service have many policies and resources for land and resource 
management from a western point of view. As a Coalition we are 
developing and finalizing a combined land management plan that is based 
on, and reflects upon, our collective ``Traditional Ecological 
Knowledge.'' This tribally-led combined land management plan will be 
utilized by the Bears Ears Commission for incorporation into the Bears 
Ears Monument Management Plan and planning process.
    One of the aspects we are looking for creative solutions to is 
financing our work as co-managers. Through mechanisms like 638 
contracts and cooperative agreements with the agencies of jurisdiction, 
we want to increase our tribe's capacity to do the work and be good 
partners to the land management agencies, which, in the case of Bears 
Ears, are the Bureau of Land Management and the United States Forest 
Service.
                               conclusion
    While we are grateful to President Biden for restoring the 
boundaries of the Bears Ears National Monument, it is now that the 
hardest work, making tribal co-management function and addressing the 
management challenges on the landscape, it is only now that the work 
can finally begin.
    Elahkwa for your time today, I am here because our people care 
enormously about the Bears Ears National Monument and stand united with 
the Bears Ears Coalition--the Hopi Tribe, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, 
Navajo Nation, and Ute Indian Tribe. We, along with our sister Pueblos 
in New Mexico and tribes throughout our country, express our 
appreciation for this dialogue and thank you for bringing this 
important topic up for discussion.

                                 ______
                                 

    The Chairman. Thank you, Lieutenant Governor. Let me now 
recognize Chairman Melvin Baker of the Southern Ute Tribal 
Council.
    Chairman Baker, you are welcome and invited to share your 
testimony, sir. You are recognized.

  STATEMENT OF MELVIN J. BAKER, CHAIRMAN, SOUTHERN UTE TRIBAL 
                   COUNCIL, IGNACIO, COLORADO

    Mr. Baker. Good morning. Thank you, everyone. Thank you for 
allowing me to do this testimony. Good morning, Chairman 
Grijalva, Ranking Member Westerman, and members of the 
Committee. My name is Melvin J. Baker. I am the elected 
Chairman of the Southern Ute Indian Tribal Council, the 
governing body of the Southern Ute Indian Tribe. Thank you for 
the invitation to speak to you today regarding tribal 
participation in the management of areas of cultural 
significance and the opportunity to acquire public lands that 
may benefit tribes.
    The Southern Ute Indian Tribe has extensive experience 
working with our Federal and state partners in the maintenance 
and management of lands in which we have a mutual interest. We 
believe that experience will benefit the Committee.
    By way of background, the Southern Ute Indian Reservation 
consists of approximately 700,000 acres of land located in 
Southwestern Colorado. Approximately 311,000 surface acres of 
that land is held in trust by the Federal Government to benefit 
the tribe. The reservation is checkerboarded with Federal and 
state governments, as well as private landowners holding 
interests in reservation land. The tribe, with just under 1,500 
members, is a leader in Indian Country, with a demonstrated and 
sterling record of foresight and business acumen. The tribe is 
the only Indian tribe in the nation with the AAA credit rating, 
which was earned through years of steady governance and 
successful and prudent business transactions.
    However, like many reservations today, the Southern Ute 
Indian Reservation was once much larger. The Utes were forced 
off their original treaty-protected lands to their present 
reservation.
    In 1874, Congress approved an agreement between the United 
States and the Ute Indians in Colorado, then known as the 
Brunot Agreements of September 13, 1873. Pursuant to the Brunot 
Agreement, the Utes were forced to cede certain lands to the 
United States but reserved a right to hunt, fish, and gather on 
that land. This land, which consists of 3.7 million acres on 
which this present-day Southern Ute and Ute Mountain Tribes 
reserved their rights, has come to be known as the Brunot Area.
    While these off-reservation rights were protected by 
Federal treaty, history shows that Federal Government often did 
not honor those rights. Today, over 27 percent of the lands 
over which the tribes could exercise their reserved rights 
have, in effect, been lost. Many of those lands currently are 
under the control of the Federal and state agencies, 
municipalities, and private landowners.
    Yet, even today, almost 150 years after the Brunot 
Agreement, and despite the Supreme Court's continuing 
recognition of the enforceability of tribal treaties, the 
Southern Ute Indian Tribe faces a constant battle to protect 
its treaty-protected lands. We frequently encounter proposed 
land swaps, where the Federal Government considers exchanging 
federally owned land for land held by private landowners or 
state or municipal governments. At times, the land the Federal 
Government wants to transfer is within the Brunot Area and the 
tribe must intervene to protect its treaty rights, an expensive 
and time-consuming endeavor.
    The Southern Ute Indian Tribe is well known and respected 
for its expertise in exercising its self-determination in 
managing its natural resources, including its energy interests. 
However, it also has a long history of coordinating with the 
Federal, state, and local governments in the management of the 
land and cultural resources in which governmental interests may 
overlap. This is particularly essential in a checkerboarded 
reservation like the Southern Utes, where the governmental 
interests must co-exist.
    A prime example is that, in September 2008, the Southern 
Ute Indian Tribe executed a memorandum of understanding with 
the state of Colorado so that they could cooperatively manage 
the wildlife resources in the Brunot Area. Under that 
memorandum, the tribe and the state agreed to develop, adopt, 
and enforce basic regulations, including opening and closure 
dates by species, designated hunting area units, bag and 
possession limits, firearms requirements, and other general 
requirements deemed necessary for the management and harvest of 
game species. Moreover, it identified how civil and criminal 
jurisdiction over violations is allocated. This memorandum 
ensures, on a cooperative basis, how wildlife resources are 
preserved and protected for both tribal and non-tribal 
purposes.
    Similarly, the Southern Ute Indian Tribe has been 
designated for treatment as a state status by the EPA with 
respect to regulation of air quality on the reservation. In 
order to receive that designation, an intergovernmental 
agreement was entered into by the tribe and the state for the 
cooperative development of air quality standards, rules and 
regulations on the reservation, once again with an allocation 
for civil criminal jurisdiction based on that government-to-
government relationship.
    The key aspects to the effectiveness of those agreements is 
placing tribes on an equal footing with other governmental 
interests in the ownership and management of these lands and 
cultural resources. The Department of the Interior has 
emphasized that the tribes must be participants in the 
management of their resources. We agree with this position. It 
is essential that the tribes not only have a voice in the 
management of their cultural resources on Federal lands, but 
actually have an opportunity to administer them on the Southern 
Ute land.
    We thank you for the testimony we are allowed to give 
today. If you have any questions, we would be more than welcome 
to try to answer those.
    And also, for all of you, if you are ever in our area, 
please stop by and visit our land. My background is--I used to 
be a former firefighter, so I understand a lot of this 
testimony, the land, the resources, and what we could do better 
to make our own tribal lands better working in cooperating with 
our local agencies, BIA, the forestry. I mean, working 
together, we can accomplish a lot. Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Baker follows:]
 Prepared Statement of the Hon. Melvin J. Baker, Chairman Southern Ute 
                              Indian Tribe
    Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member Westerman and members of the 
Committee. My name is Melvin J. Baker. I am the elected Chairman of the 
Southern Ute Indian Tribal Council, the governing body of the Southern 
Ute Indian Tribe.
    Thank you for the invitation to speak to you today regarding Tribal 
participation in the management of areas of cultural significance and 
the opportunity to acquire public lands that may benefit Tribes. The 
Southern Ute Indian Tribe has extensive experience working with our 
federal and state partners in the maintenance and management of lands 
in which we have a mutual interest. We believe that experience will 
benefit the Committee.
    By way of background, the Southern Ute Indian Reservation consists 
of approximately 700,000 acres of land located in southwestern 
Colorado. Approximately 311,000 surface acres of that land is held in 
trust by the Federal Government for the benefit of the Tribe. The 
Reservation is checkerboarded with federal and state governments, as 
well as private landowners, holding interests in Reservation land. The 
Tribe, with just under 1,500 members, is a leader in Indian Country 
with a demonstrated and sterling record of foresight and business 
acumen. The Tribe is the only Indian Tribe in the Nation with a AAA+ 
credit rating, which was earned through years of steady governance and 
successful and prudent business transactions.
    However, like many Reservations today, the Southern Ute Indian 
Reservation was once much larger. The Utes were forced off their 
original Treaty protected lands to their present Reservation.
    In 1874, Congress approved an agreement between the United States 
and the Ute Indians in Colorado, known as the Brunot Agreement of 
September 13, 1873.\1\ Pursuant to the Brunot Agreement, the Utes were 
forced to cede certain lands to the United States but reserved a right 
to hunt, fish and gather on that land. This land, which consists of 3.7 
million acres on which the present day Southern Ute and the Ute 
Mountain Ute Tribes reserved their rights, has come to be known as the 
Brunot Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Act of April 29, 1874, ch. 136, 18 Stat. 36 (1874).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While these off-Reservation rights were protected by federal 
Treaty, history shows that the Federal Government often did not honor 
those rights. Today, over 27% of the lands over which the Tribes could 
exercise their reserved rights have, in effect, been lost. Many of 
those lands currently are under the control of federal and state 
agencies, municipalities, and private landowners.
    Yet even today, almost 150 years after the Brunot Agreement and 
despite the Supreme Court's continuing recognition of the 
enforceability of Tribal Treaties, the Southern Ute Indian Tribe faces 
a constant battle to protect its Treaty protected lands. We frequently 
encounter proposed land swaps, where the Federal Government considers 
exchanging federally-owned land for land held by private landowners or 
state or municipal governments. At times, the land the Federal 
Government wants to transfer is within the Brunot Area and the Tribe 
must intervene to protect its Treaty rights, an expensive and time-
consuming endeavor.
    The Southern Ute Indian Tribe is well known and respected for its 
expertise in exercising its self-determination in managing its natural 
resources, including its energy interests. However, it also has a long 
history of coordinating with federal, state and local governments in 
the management of land and cultural resources in which governmental 
interests may overlap. This is particularly essential in a 
checkerboarded Reservation like Southern Ute where such governmental 
interests must co-exist.
    A prime example is that in September 2008, the Southern Ute Indian 
Tribe executed a memorandum of understanding with the State of Colorado 
so that they could cooperatively manage the wildlife resources in the 
Brunot Area. Under that Memorandum, the Tribe and the State agreed to 
develop, adopt, and enforce basic regulations including opening and 
closure dates by species, designated hunting units, bag and possession 
limits, firearms requirements, and other general requirements deemed 
necessary for the management and harvest of game species. Moreover, it 
identified how civil and criminal jurisdiction over violations is 
allocated. This Memorandum ensures, on a cooperative basis, how 
wildlife resources are preserved and protected for both tribal and non-
tribal purposes.
    Similarly, the Southern Ute Tribe has been designated for Treatment 
as a State status by the EPA with respect to regulation of air quality 
on the Reservation. In order to receive that designation, an 
intergovernmental agreement was entered into by the Tribe and the State 
for the cooperative development of air quality standards, rules and 
regulations on the Reservation, once again with an allocation for civil 
and criminal jurisdiction based on that government-to-government 
relationship.
    The key with respect to the effectiveness of these Agreements is 
placing Tribes on an equal footing with other governmental interests in 
the ownership and management of these lands and cultural resources. The 
Department of Interior has emphasized that Tribes must be participants 
in the management of their resources. We agree with this position. It 
is essential that Tribes have not only a voice in the management of 
their cultural resources on federal lands but actually have an 
opportunity to administer them. On the Southern Ute Indian Reservation 
is the Chimney Rock National Monument, currently managed by the U.S. 
Forest Service. This is a site of cultural importance to the Tribe and 
there is no reason why it should not be under Tribal administration. 
Likewise, when federal lands are sold, Tribal interests should be 
considered. This is particularly important to a Tribe like Southern Ute 
where the acquisition of land adjacent to the and the protection of its 
cultural resources.
    Once again, we appreciate the opportunity to comment on the 
importance of Tribal participation in these land management decisions 
and look forward to any questions from the Committee.

                                 ______
                                 

    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Your testimony is 
appreciated. And I want to thank all the witnesses for their 
valuable testimony.
    I am reminding Members that our Committee Rules impose a 5-
minute limit on questions. The Chair will recognize Members for 
any questions they may wish to ask these witnesses. Let me 
start by recognizing myself for 5 minutes.
    Director Sams, I mentioned earlier this is one of the first 
times we have discussed tribal co-management in Congress. With 
that said, what legislative authorities can Congress use to 
assist and facilitate tribal co-management relationships going 
forward?
    And what current funding streams are available at the 
Department of the Interior to support initiatives around tribal 
co-management opportunities?
    Director?
    Mr. Sams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Executive Order 13175 
really provides us the consultation and coordination with 
Indian tribes and being able to co-manage these lands.
    Congress, under NPS cooperative management agreement 
authority found under 54 U.S.C. 101703, grants the Secretary 
the authority to enter into agreements with state and local 
governments to acquire goods and services in order to create a 
more effective and efficient delivery service. National parks 
across the country have used this authority to enter into 
agreements to provide a variety of services, from snowplow 
operations to transit. An expanded cooperative management 
agreement authority to include tribes could yield substantial 
benefits for both the National Park Service and our tribal 
partners.
    As far as funding streams, on the Federal side, traditional 
NPS funding sources are available to engage with tribes on co-
management opportunities and self-governance and annual funding 
agreements. State tribal local planning grants are available 
for the tribes through the Historic Preservation Fund, which 
supports the work of THPOs through competitive and non-
competitive grant programs. There are currently 203 THPOs. The 
Fiscal Year 2022 budget has requested an additional $10 billion 
to fund these offices through non-competitive grants.
    The Tribal Heritage Grants are competitive and available to 
federally recognized tribes, Alaska Natives, and Native 
Hawaiian organizations. These grants have been used for such 
things as protection of Indigenous language, oral histories, 
plant and animal species that are important to tradition, and 
to sacred and historic places.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Sams. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Lieutenant Governor, I have some questions, 
but let me ask you--during the times that we are in right now, 
Lieutenant Governor, and you caught a hint of the debate, it is 
less in terms of the debate that is going to happen around 
energy policy, and particularly being driven by what is going 
on in that horrible aggression by Putin and Ukraine and the 
consequences to those people. And all that now creates a 
situation where the value is the extraction, that becomes the 
primary value.
    Let me ask you about that. When we talk about the struggle, 
when we talk about cultural, sacred sites, cultural 
preservation, and the topic today relative to the issue of co-
management and the role of defining that trust responsibility 
even sharper for the Federal Government, talk about value, if 
you don't mind. I mean, the value that we see that is going to 
be promoted, the resource is the extraction, is what we can get 
out of it, versus some of the discussions, even around Bears 
Ears and other struggles, have been around the issue of 
preservation, sacred sites, cultural resources.
    If you don't mind, Lieutenant Governor, talking a little 
bit about value.
    Mr. Bowekaty. Chairman, thank you for that question. And I 
guess we are speaking to renewable energy versus extractive 
industries.
    Speaking with our cultural leaders, we are supportive of 
those renewable energies, and we understand in a modern world, 
our foreign interest in this energy policy--my reflection of 
that, I am a veteran of the Iraqi wars, did three deployments 
to Iraq, and looking at it, what is our investment return on 
that situation? If we committed those resources and that time 
and effort into securing some of these agreements, where is 
that reflection now?
    When I look back on that intensive effort, and seeing the 
impact it had to the Iraqi landscape, I come back to my own 
reservation and see some of those same policies affecting that. 
When we see drought throughout the--and right now, we don't 
even know if it is called a mega-drought. We have to find a new 
definition for what is occurring in the Southwest here.
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mr. Bowekaty. When we look at the Colorado River at 
historic lows, how is that going to affect the entire landscape 
throughout the Southwest, when many of those people envisioned 
that there would be snowpacks or no climate change?
    So, when we look at the reflection of conservation and 
protection of water, those are the things that we are trying to 
protect.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much, and I yield back.
    Ranking Member Westerman, sir, you are recognized for your 
questions, comments.
    Mr. Westerman. I thank the Chairman and thank you to the 
witnesses.
    Chairman Baker, tribes like the Southern Utes have proven 
to be excellent stewards of natural resources. As we think 
about the unprecedented spikes in energy costs due to the 
Russian invasion of Ukraine--and we know that there are massive 
reserves of untapped energy on tribal lands--do you think that 
we should be trying to get more oil and gas from hostile 
nations like Iran or Venezuela, or from tribes like your own?
    Mr. Baker. Well, I believe that if the tribes have it 
within their reservation homelands, it is definitely an 
opportunity.
    We are very advanced in the oil and gas, but of course we 
do cater to Mother Nature, the land, all that, and we have to 
do things respectfully. Some of our rules and regulations 
surpass even the Federal Government's rules and regulations.
    So, I think, working together--and we always have other 
Native tribes that come and visit with us for a one-on-one, and 
how do you do this with new technology like horizontal 
drilling. It really changes the footprint of you don't see 
lands that are totally destroyed. It is all underground, 
horizontal drilling, and there is a lot of new technology we 
continue to work.
    But we do support domestic production in Indian Country. I 
mean, if we have the resources, we should, and I think it could 
really benefit some of the tribes that are not doing that.
    But again, we have the expertise to even work with tribes, 
and that is why they come and talk with us. So, we are always 
willing to meet with them, or anyone that wants to come out and 
see what we have put together.
    Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairman.
    And you know we are all concerned about being good stewards 
of the environment. As you mentioned, you all are good stewards 
of your resources. And we know that the natural gas that we 
produce here in the United States is 40 percent cleaner than 
the gas that Putin produces.
    If folks are really concerned about the environment, do you 
think that cutting off production on Federal lands so that we 
can source more energy from hostile nations is the right move, 
or should we be using the energy that you produce?
    And could you talk about some of the hurdles that you face 
and the environmental sideboards that go into producing energy 
on tribal lands?
    Mr. Baker. I definitely would not support utilizing, as you 
said, hostile or other countries' oil when we can do it right 
here in our own country, using more advanced, economical, as 
well as protecting the land.
    Again, we are at a good point, where we are at, but we can 
do better. We all can do better. But a lot of times it is all 
about the Federal funding, what it costs to do that. And I 
think here in the United States, working together, sharing that 
technology, cleaner energy, everything that goes with it, it 
definitely can be done. And I support, if we could move forward 
in that direction, working with anyone who wants to work with 
us. But as I mentioned, a lot of times it is all about the 
funding.
    Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know that tribes 
had to lobby for an exemption from the Biden administration's 
ban on U.S. oil and gas leasing, and fortunately, you were 
successful in that. How devastating would it have been for your 
tribe had you had oil and gas production banned?
    Mr. Baker. Honestly, I don't think we would be where we are 
at today. When it started in the early 1980s, and our 
leadership that took on those tasks, and where we are today, we 
are a major player in that. But again, if we did not go that 
route, we would not be where we are today, and continuing to be 
helping our membership, helping our reservation, helping others 
with what we can. But again, we always could use assistance 
doing what we need to do and helping everybody else, helping 
our neighbors, as well.
    We have a resource development that allows us to provide 
education and health care for our membership. There are some 
things that we pay for ourselves that we can help, and that is 
because of what we have done. If we wouldn't have done it, we 
wouldn't be where we are today. And again, our forefathers 
built that foundation. It is up to us today to continue and do 
even better and still keeping clean energy in mind for the 
future.
    Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairman. If we are going to ban 
Russian energy, I would hope that we would produce more from 
tribal lands and from our Federal lands and do it in a clean 
and sustainable way.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Let me turn to Representative 
Huffman. Mr. Chairman, you are recognized.
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, boy, the false 
choices are flying from our Republican colleagues this morning.
    Do we respond to Putin by cutting dirty oil deals with Iran 
and Venezuela, or do we develop oil and gas on tribal lands? 
Our gas is cleaner than Putin's gas.
    I mean, our Republican colleagues just keep inviting us to 
pick our favorite Menendez brother or pick the prettiest horse 
at the glue factory. These are false choices, folks.
    There is a third way. We will keep saying it, and I hope 
maybe it gets through, but it is called clean energy. It 
changes the whole paradigm. And in a decarbonized world, you 
don't have to pick the prettiest horse at the glue factory. You 
can actually have clean energy, which makes thugs like Vladimir 
Putin powerless and poor. And pretty soon it will make Russia 
look for a new leader.
    But today's hearing is about an important subject, Mr. 
Chairman. I am glad that you are focusing us on tribal co-
management with our public lands. It is a big deal in my 
district. Indigenous culture is very important. I have dozens 
of federally recognized tribes--in fact, more than any other 
Congressional District in the Lower 48--and Indigenous people, 
we know, have lived on these lands since time immemorial. They 
have incredible ecological knowledge and insights.
    This is not just something we say, it is actually proven by 
the science. In May 2019, the Intergovernmental Science Policy 
Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services released a 
landmark report about the decline of nature globally and the 
rise of extinctions. And this report found that three-quarters 
of the terrestrial environment and about two-thirds of the 
marine environment have been significantly altered by human 
activities. But on average, these trends have been less severe 
or even avoided in areas managed by Indigenous people. So, this 
is data that should not be ignored.
    The Biden administration has taken some good steps, 
recognizing this important link by creating an Interagency 
Working Group on Indigenous Traditional Ecological Knowledge. 
The Administration's America the Beautiful initiative outlines 
how we can achieve conservation of 30 percent of lands and 
waters by 2030, and that includes not just public and private 
lands, but also tribal lands and waters. So, I appreciate all 
that.
    And as Chairman of the Water, Oceans, and Wildlife 
Subcommittee, I am especially interested in how this can help 
coastal communities thrive.
    I want to start with Ms. DeCoteau. Thank you for your 
important work conserving salmon. I understand that this is not 
only a subsistence resource for you, but also cultural. And as 
you have discussed, tribal governments have very unique 
ecological insights. Can you speak to some of the challenges 
tribal governments experience under the current consultation 
system?
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Huffman. Oh, I am sorry. I got ahead of myself, and I 
was asking the second panel. So, I am going to go to Director 
Sams, and I want to ask the Director about the National Park 
Service's efforts to dedicate a national office of Native 
American affairs, and how this will help with opportunities to 
expand co-management and collaboration.
    I appreciate the reference to Redwood National Park, which, 
interestingly, is co-managed between Federal and state 
governments. What can we do to do more with our tribal 
partners?
    Mr. Sams. Thank you, Congressman. Yes, we re-established 
the tribal office within my office. Dorothy FireCloud, who is 
the Associate Director for that, reports directly to me, and 
she is building out her staff. And plus, we are ensuring that 
we have tribal liaisons within each of our regions, so that we 
will have somebody who can help in that direct tribe 
government-to-government relationship and consultation, to 
ensure that we are not dropping anything as we go along.
    It is very exciting to have this re-established. Before I 
came to the National Park Service, I worked, of course, in 
conservation for nearly 30 years, and I have done a number of 
projects in cooperation with the National Park Service. 
Sometimes, there were tribal liaisons and sometimes there 
weren't. But when there were tribal liaisons, it really did 
help bridge any gaps. It was an opportunity for the Federal 
Government to not only meet its trust responsibilities, but to 
form long-term relationships that were transformational and 
less transactional.
    So, I am very happy that we have re-established that here 
at NPS, and Dorothy and her team will be working very closely 
across the United States with a whole host of tribes and NPS 
staff to ensure our government-to-government responsibilities 
are being met.
    Mr. Huffman. I appreciate it. Thanks for your good work 
there, and I will circle back with my other question when we 
get to the other panel.
    Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you. The gentleman yields. Let me 
recognize Mr. Fulcher. Sir, you are recognized.
    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to my 
friend, Mr. Huffman, and his desire to move toward carbon free 
energy. I will share that with my grandkids as an explanation 
of why they no longer live in a free and independent America. 
But in the meantime, I have a question for Mr. Baker.
    The tribes hold about 3 percent of the known oil and gas 
reserves in the United States. Mr. Baker, in your view, what is 
the proper role of the tribes in managing that, in regard to 
the harvesting of oil and gas?
    Mr. Baker. I think, first and foremost, it is self-
determination. Again, this goes way back in history, from our 
past ancestors, of how we got there, when we had others that 
were doing all the drilling and everything on our reservation 
lands.
    And in the 1980s, the former Chairman Burch had moved that 
into where we started taking over our own, and we were in 
control of our own destiny.
    Mr. Fulcher. So, do you think that it is proper to exercise 
the harvesting of more oil and gas on those lands?
    Mr. Baker. If there is opportunity, I believe so. Because, 
again, we keep talking about we don't want someone else's oil 
when we can produce it here in our own country, that we can do 
cleaner energy. So, I believe, yes, it is very viable.
    But, again, maintaining the clean footprint of--we have to 
do a better job. Things have gotten better. And it is up to 
each tribe how they move forward, each and every tribe.
    Mr. Fulcher. OK, thank you, Mr. Baker. You had also touched 
on the layout of some of these lands and the checkerboard 
nature of that. How does that checkerboarding of Federal, 
state, tribal, and private ownership land, how does that impact 
the tribe's use of that land?
    Mr. Baker. The Southern Ute Indian Reservation was once 56 
million acres, covering the western half of Colorado. But after 
precious metals were discovered in the mountains, our 
reservation was substantially diminished. The tribe now does 
its best to preserve and protect the close to 700,000 acres 
within the reservation boundaries. After the Homestead Act of 
1862, our reservation was reduced once again and led the 
tribe's necessary work to collaboratively work with local 
jurisdictions in its effort to preserve and protect its 
resources.
    So, we work pretty well hand in hand. At times we do have a 
few hurdles, but we always seem to work through it, whether it 
is the state, the Federal, the BLM, whoever, we are always at 
the forefront of wanting to do the right thing for our country 
and our reservation, first and foremost.
    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you for that, Mr. Baker.
    I would like to shift over, if I may, to Director Sams. 
First of all, congratulations to you in your role with the 
National Park Service, Mr. Sams.
    If the National Park Service were to move forward with 
tribal co-management on one or more of our national parks--I 
know you touched on that--which ones would you propose as 
potential candidates?
    Are there any specific units that could serve maybe as a 
pilot project for a co-management, or possible co-management 
project?
    Mr. Sams. Thank you, Congressman. There are a number of 
parks. Many of the lands that the National Park Service has, 
particularly out West, are lands that were ceded to the U.S. 
Government through treaty, whether that was treaties of war or 
peace. But many times, the tribes were able to reserve their 
rights to hunt, fish, and gather in those spaces. And they 
already do a lot of co-management, along with the states and 
the Federal Government on flora and fauna.
    So, I think expanding some of those opportunities, there 
are great opportunities at Yosemite, there are great 
opportunities at Glacier, great opportunities at Yellowstone. 
And, of course, as we talked about, in Acadia, where we are 
doing sweetgrass.
    There is a great opportunity here to be able to bring not 
only that traditional ecological knowledge, but the reciprocity 
that tribes demonstrate when they are doing restoration and co-
management of these different flora and fauna because, 
ultimately, it is for the entire American people. Our idea is 
to bring these species back, not to just a survival rate, but 
to a thriving rate, so that all people will be able to enjoy 
them for future generations.
    Mr. Fulcher. Great. Mr. Sams, thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you. The gentleman yields. Let me turn 
to my esteemed colleague from Arizona.
    Representative Gallego, you are recognized.
    Mr. Gallego. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, 
Lieutenant Governor, and thank you for your time today.
    I have been proud to work closely with the Bears Ears 
Inter-Tribal Coalition over the past few years to advocate for 
the reinstatement of the National Monument, and I was proud to 
stand alongside you, as well, as we watched President Biden do 
that last year.
    While our work to promote and protect Bears Ears Monument 
is not over, I am glad we are also discussing how to move 
forward and ensure the tribal voices continue to be centered in 
land management practices. To that end, I have a couple of 
questions for you.
    No. 1, why is it important that the Zuni Tribe be allowed 
the opportunity to participate in the management of Bears Ears 
National Monument?
    And then No. 2, what elements do you think need to be in 
place for a successful tribal and Federal co-management plan 
for Bears Ears?
    Mr. Bowekaty. Thank you, Representative Gallego, for that, 
and good to see you again.
    Going back to part of the reason why we established a 
monument and a coalition, we discussed this during the Bears 
Ears Prayer Run. The Bears Ears Prayer Run was designated to 
allow tribal youth to reconnect to Bears Ears, the landscape, 
and in that process, going back to my own personal journey, 
Bears Ears landscape and the special ties that have allowed us 
to reconnect.
    And what I mean, and I need for our younger generations to 
understand, is that their existence is bigger than the 
reservation. When we speak to the things that we want for them, 
and the continuance of traditional ecological knowledge, they 
are the ones that are going to continue it for us. We can want 
it for them as tribal leaders, but we can't force it on them. 
They have to want it for themselves. And if they don't want it 
for themselves, we see the spiritual repercussions they have.
    When the U.S. Government first asked the Zuni people, 
``What are your thoughts on suicide,'' we laughed at them 
because that was counter to our narratives, that was counter to 
our prayers and our stories. Now if you ask us why do our 
children go down suicide, it is that sense of disconnection 
from their own sense of self, and it is reflected by a lot of 
the policies that were adopted.
    What was mentioned earlier about some of the extractive 
industries, and right now pitting kind of the idea of tribal 
lands, are they open for extraction, we are not trying to say 
that tribes shouldn't do that for their own people. At the time 
tribal governments were being developed, the BIA had very 
limited resources, and most of them were geared toward some 
sort of extractive industry that would allow them some sort of 
economic development. We have not gone down that route, and we 
have found different avenues to be successful, and we are proud 
to say that most of our funding--we are our own bank for a lot 
of our funding streams. So, in that situation, we have found 
different ways to be successful. And it is through a reflection 
of those values that we continue to hold today.
    So, when we speak of co-management of such places like 
Bears Ears landscape, it is essential, because those are some 
of the watersheds that continue to feed places like the little 
Colorado River, the Colorado River in general, and those are 
some of the things that we continue to push for.
    We have heard acknowledgments from many representatives of 
San Juan County themselves say that there is no extractive 
resources available for this region. So, when we look at that, 
what is the inherent responsibility of the Federal Government 
and the consultation process is that it usually comes back to 
the 106 process. And the 106 process--what I mean by Section 
106 of the NHPA process, is that it recognizes that certain 
consultation has to happen when certain historic places are 
affected. But it never reflects the spiritual, physical 
connection that we have to that place, because when we connect 
to that place, it inherently ties the ancestral past to the 
present, and hopefully connects it for the future children.
    So, those are some of the things that we hope to ensure 
that happens when we look at the protecting of sacred places.
    When it comes to co-management what are some of the ways 
that we can accomplish that, making sure that we help the 
agencies understand that we are approaching it from a cultural 
landscape type of perspective. In the 106 process role, we are 
often asked to process it piecemeal, and that creates a 
hindrance to many tribes when this is one of their priorities. 
Knowledge of an area that has ancestral ties is important, and 
when we have that responsibility, we can't let that go.
    However, the government always treats it as, well, this is 
a project, here's this location, how is it affected, when we 
know that our approach with the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal 
Coalition has been really the 1.9 million acres. We understand 
that, in the end, the proclamation states 1.36. However, we are 
still looking at that as an entire landscape.
    So, those are some of the things that, when we are doing 
our land management planning process, that is what we hope will 
inform the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service on 
how we can accomplish that. Speaking with the Forest Service 
and the BLM, they are experts in their processes. However, it 
is always absent from the tribal point of view. Thank you.
    Mr. Gallego. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    The Chairman. Let me now recognize the Dean of the House, 
Representative Young.
    Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for having 
this hearing. I was really shocked when I say my good friend 
got the wrong panel.
    I know, Mr. Huffman, we had a tough meeting yesterday, but 
I am sorry it took so much out of you. I have a tongue in 
cheek, by the way.
    But, anyway, I am very interested in this co-management 
working together. With all due respects, in Alaska, the Park 
Service does not have a good reputation with Alaska Native 
tribes. There is a lack of participation. There should be more.
    This is for Mr. Sams. In your written testimony, you gave 
many examples of how the Park Service is working with tribes. I 
would like to make a suggestion. Just give me an example of 
where you are working with the Alaska Natives in park lands.
    Mr. Sams. Thank you, Mr. Young. It is so good to see you 
again, and it was a pleasure working with you on the Kennewick 
Man several years ago. I appreciate your leadership.
    We are in deep discussions with a number of the Alaskan 
Natives. We have a new regional director in Alaska now, and we 
are wanting to put a lot more effort in that. As I said, we 
have worked with the Tlingit in the past regarding the 
harvesting of eggs. But we recognize there are much more 
opportunities to be working in Glacier Bay on interpretation. 
So, we are reinvigorating our consultation and government-to-
government throughout Alaska.
    As a matter of fact, next week I will be taking a full 
course on ANCSA and ANILCA. And then I look forward to getting 
up to Alaska to meet directly with several of the corporations 
and the tribal villages to talk about how we can greatly 
improve that government-to-government relationship we have with 
Native Alaskans, and----
    Mr. Young. I appreciate that. I am not really upset with 
you, I just say, overall, the Park Service has not done a good 
job.
    I do a lot of this work, and I will give you an example 
now. We have a little project in Sitka, Alaska, 113 acres, very 
little participation. Now, with that park--it is just a totem 
park, and I think it should be totally managed by the local 
tribe. That is who it is, that is their culture, they know more 
about it than anybody else. Yet, they can't get any headway in 
the presentation in what happens there, culturally, and that's 
not right. So, I hope you take a good look at that and say, 
``Come on, guys, we could work this out.''
    I have the land bridge up at Noatak, that is another one, 
and no one wants to work together there. And I have numerous 
parks that--Anaktuvuk Pass, I will give you an example. The 
Park Service said, ``Oh, we can't hire anybody, they don't have 
any experience.'' They will hire somebody from Massachusetts, 
but they won't hire a local person.
    Don't do that, I mean, that makes everybody--parks and 
partners, that is what I want, parks and partners together. And 
you will find out your job is going to be a whole lot easier if 
you have partners, and the partners should be those that 
aboriginally lived there prior to the creation of the parks. 
Let them have the opportunity for jobs and the opportunity to 
present their point of view. You can do it with covenants.
    So, that is just a suggestion, that is all.
    And I will ask you, can you give us something in writing, 
what you think Congress can do to help you out or give you new 
tools to work with the aboriginal people?
    Mr. Sams. Thank you, Congressman. We are analyzing that 
right now. I have talked to the Solicitor's Office. I want to 
see how we are able to use the authorities that have already 
been granted to the Secretary and also to the National Park 
Service. But I think there are gaps, and I look forward to 
working with you and this Committee as we move forward with 
some proposals on some great potentials where you can help us 
fill in those gaps so that we have some better authorities to 
work in co-management with tribes.
    I want to say, especially with Sitka and the land bridge, I 
have heard those concerns. I am committed to investigating 
those, and I will report back to you on how we can better 
partner with both of those parks.
    Mr. Young. I appreciate that, sir. And if you do that--like 
I say, I want allies, parks and partners. When you don't do the 
job I think you should be doing or they think you should be 
doing, you are losing a partner. And that is not good.
    So, we can work together to do the same thing the Park 
Service wants to do to preserve the area, but let the local 
people who originally owned it, inhabited it, culturally used 
it, let them be the big conveyor and manager of it.
    Thank you for your time. And Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Let me turn to Representative 
Leger Fernandez from New Mexico. You are recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Mr. Chair, thank you so much for 
holding this hearing.
    With over 500 federally recognized tribes and hundreds of 
millions of acres of Federal land that was once aboriginal, the 
tribes always exercise dominion over those lands, and they knew 
how to nurture it to sustain their members. So, the ability of 
them to bring their wisdom to bear with the Federal Government 
and, indeed, with the state, I think, is key. And I am so glad 
we are holding this hearing.
    With regard to the comments at the beginning, that we are 
facing an energy crisis that should displace this hearing in 
any way, I note that oil and gas production is up. It is rising 
and approaching record numbers. The United States was a net 
exporter of petroleum and petroleum products the last 2 years. 
That is not the crisis.
    Instead, we need to recognize that real energy security 
comes from transitioning away from our dependence on fossil 
fuels, so everything is controlled here in the United States.
    I love the fact that this hearing is properly on co-
management and Indigenous wisdom in managing natural cultural 
resources. And I think some of our tribal leaders might say 
this is a long-standing priority itself. This might be the 
crisis that we have failed to address.
    When I was working with the Jicarilla Apache Nation, the 
state of New Mexico, a court said, ``The State of New Mexico, 
the Nation is such a better steward of the forests and their 
wildlife population.'' This has been proved for decades over 
and over again.
    Chairman Melvin, thank you so much for your wisdom sharing 
with us today how the Southern Utes are embracing the full 
range of energy resource development with a true respect for 
your lands and your self-determination.
    Lieutenant Governor Bowekaty, how wonderful to see you 
again, how wonderful to hear your wisdom, which I was so lucky 
to hear when we were at Chaco. I wanted to ask a bit about the 
co-management at Bears Ears. You noted that it is not just Zuni 
Pueblo, but a group of tribes in the Southwest that are working 
on this as an inter-tribal coalition. I want to focus on that 
role that tribes can play working together and with the Federal 
Government.
    Can you tell us how you think that strengthens the ability 
to protect Bears Ears and their ability to advocate for Bears 
Ears?
    Mr. Bowekaty. Thank you, Representative. It is good to see 
you again.
    As far as the work between the inter-tribal coalition, 
again, when we looked at our proposal to then-President Obama 
on the creation of the Bears Ears National Monument, we did 
reflect on our core cultural values, and it was that discussion 
and guidance--and again, being backed by a traditional cultural 
knowledge--and within our own internal healing we recognized 
the importance of this place and how to interact with the 
different agencies.
    And, again, we all had the same experience, mostly walking 
down a Section 106 process, and trying to advocate, in general, 
the cultural landscape. However, we all came across the same 
issues and the same consistent barriers. So, with that in mind, 
that discussion with other cultural leaders and, again, with 
our own tribal leadership, that is what was inherent behind the 
proposal.
    Based on that, we continued to have those discussions, and 
they are reflective of each tribe's capacities. But each tribe 
has an equal vote and an equal voice at the table. Through that 
process it will reflect their own--and again, the coalition is 
reflective of each tribal governing process. Each tribal 
government appoints or designates a representative to be on the 
Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition, and now the Bear Ears 
Commission. And, then again, that is with that inherent voice 
and that sovereign idea in mind. That is the handshake 
agreement that we have and will continue to forge.
    In that spirit, we can help the agencies interact with us 
better. And, hopefully, with that model, that is something that 
can be shared regionally across agencies and, hopefully, be 
adopted by the rest of the United States. Thank you.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you. And if I could just ask a 
quick followup--as the Zuni Pueblo works on this, what are the 
ways in which, once again, we can help you and the other tribes 
accomplish this goal of co-management and co-coordination?
    Mr. Bowekaty. I guess to be really supportive of some of 
the memorandums of understanding that have come out. I know 
there is a joint secretarial MOU between agencies. Those are 
reflective of that and really appreciate some of those efforts 
being made. And if those can be reflected on the ground with 
the field offices, that is where we can make that discussion 
and make sure that what is being spoken here is being reflected 
on the ground. That is how we can continue to reinforce that. 
Thank you.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you, Lieutenant Governor.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady yields.
    Representative Moore, you are recognized for 5 minutes, 
sir.
    Mr. Moore. Thank you, Chairman. I appreciate everyone being 
here today. The topic, obviously, is very important to Utah, my 
home state, and the state I represent and the areas that I do.
    Mr. Melvin Baker, my first question--I will jump right into 
questions--like the Southern Ute Tribe, the Ute Indian Tribe in 
Utah cares deeply about its natural resources and energy 
interests. In the Uinta Basin, the Ute Tribe produces more than 
45,000 barrels of crude oil per day and 900 million cubic feet 
per day of natural gas. This is a major element of the tribe's 
economy and a crucial aspect of the Uinta Basin's larger 
economy.
    However, on President Biden's first day in office he 
prohibited all new leasing on Federal lands. This action harmed 
the tribe and all of America. Can you describe why this action, 
done without consultation, was harmful?
    Mr. Baker. Well, first and foremost, consultation is very 
important as we move forward. We can learn from each other, we 
can talk about it, and we can talk about the challenges. The 
tribe has taken the lead in producing clean energy in Southwest 
Colorado, often filling the lead role in environmental 
protection. As we keep mentioning, we are caretakers of the 
land as Native people, so we have to do all we can to protect 
the land and Mother Earth.
    In the absence of the significant presence of EPA and the 
state of Colorado in Southwest Colorado, improving air and 
water quality not only for the tribal membership, but for all 
citizens of our Four Corners region. So, again, we are always 
having to have discussions. Those discussions never stop. We 
hit roadblocks, we work through it. We have to work with our 
partners and other agencies, remove some of the Federal 
hurdles, and shift to self-determination on our reservation.
    Mr. Moore. Excellent. The Ute Indian Tribe was also an 
equity partner on the Uinta Basin Railway Project, which will 
promote the entire region's economy by connecting energy 
sources with the larger rail network. However, this broadly 
supported effort is being opposed by several groups that have 
sought to delay the process.
    Why do you think it is damaging for outside groups to try 
to undermine self-determination?
    Mr. Baker. Well, it just seems like, no matter what we do, 
there is always somebody to oppose it, whatever issue it is.
    Again, I don't think they have all the facts and all the 
information they need to make a vital assessment. But some 
groups just jump on the bandwagon and protect whatever without 
really knowing the facts of what is the positive of it.
    Tribal land is still considered Federal and public land. 
So, again, we are going to do the right thing to move forward. 
Even though we have that opposition, we still have to strive 
each and every day to try to get forward in what we believe in.
    Mr. Moore. Yes, our office has been heavily involved with 
this. I have seen an enormous amount of thought and care for 
how this will impact land--you know, this is area that these 
people live and work. It is the water. No one cares more about 
these natural resources than those that live in the Uinta 
Basin, whether it be with the Ute Tribe, or whether it be in 
Utah, Uinta County generally, or Duchesne County, as well.
    I would make just one comment, that the amount of thought 
that has gone into this project has been all-encompassing. It 
is a 360 view on everything related to how it affects the 
environment to how it affects the local area, the local 
economy. And that concept of self-determination is enormous. I 
think that it has been a really neat thing to be a part of and 
helping bring the community together. There has been quite a 
bit of strife over the years with that region and that 
particular part of my district. For them to come together on 
this particular railway project has been excellent.
    Would you agree with that, that there has been sincere 
thought that has gone into this in an all-encompassing way?
    And has it brought the community together to some degree?
    Mr. Baker. Yes, I agree with it. But again, on our side, we 
are not really too familiar with the project that is going on 
up there.
    And as you first mentioned, you have groups that are 
against it. But at the end of the day, this erodes our self-
determination as tribes of how we can move forward with that 
opposition. We have it, and tribes should have the authority to 
determine what is best for their tribal lands, and that is for 
each and every tribe.
    We don't know what the resources are, but they know. Years 
ago, how did they survive on the land that they were at? And as 
years have gone by, certain tribes have been placed in certain 
areas, but Native people have always been able to adapt to how 
to survive and do the right thing.
    Mr. Moore. Excellent. Thank you very much, Chairman.
    Mr. Baker. Thank you.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields. Let me now recognize 
Representative McCollum. You are recognized.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for 
holding this first-of-a-kind hearing.
    We are here today to understand the path forward for the 
Federal Government to work in a serious partnership with Tribal 
Nations to manage their resources and our shared resources. And 
I just want to clear up a few things that were said earlier, 
and it is taking time away from me, but I need to do it about 
some of the oil exploration.
    The Interior Appropriations Committee worked diligently 
with tribes to make sure that they had access to the experts 
that they needed in order to do their decision-making process 
toward moving forward with any oil exploration or drilling for 
oil.
    It was really hard during the boom, because the Federal 
Government, in and of itself, even in the regular agency for 
having people available to do the work that needed to be done 
on Federal lands, were competing with oil industries. So, we 
got behind on that a little bit, but it was due to just sheer 
lack of manpower, person power. And then we were working with 
the tribes on how to enhance and work that up, because the 
tribes had a right to participate on that.
    So, it wasn't necessarily a lack of the Federal Government 
not wanting to be helpful in this case. But it was just a sheer 
number of having experts needed in order to do this right, and 
the tribes deserve to have any leases, any drilling, anything 
that happens done with all the due diligence that we give our 
other Federal lands.
    We know Native Americans were displaced from their 
homelands. They lost their practices. They lost the ability to 
manage those lands and maintain healthy ecosystems. And that is 
a huge loss that we also experienced as a nation.
    Tribal Nations continue to fight to retain their rights to 
hunt and fish and gather on much of the current Federal land. 
And they have a stake, they have a huge stake in making sure 
that, when the Federal Government moves forward on any land 
that we manage, that we support their tribal rights to hunt and 
fish, gather rice, wild rice, be able to harvest walleye. And 
it means that those resources should not be depleted or 
polluted.
    So, we have a lot to do, and I am very excited about this 
opportunity how to expand tribal co-management. I want to thank 
all the witnesses today.
    Director Sams, I am so excited. It took 5 years, 5 years, 
for the Senate to confirm a leader for the National Park 
Service, and I am thrilled to have you in that position as the 
first tribal citizen to lead that agency. Your experience in 
tribal local government, I could go on and on, you bring a 
great needed understanding.
    I want to ask you about how the Park Service is going to 
work under your direction to better utilize some of these 
existing authorities, such as the 638 contracting, which 
includes Tribal Nations in the management of our national 
parks. You have been kind of queued up a little bit on some 
specifics, with Sitka National Park being one of them, but can 
you kind of tell me how you are looking at the big picture?
    I know this is something that the Park Service has been 
trying to get right for a long time. Now is our opportunity to 
get it right.
    Mr. Sams. Thank you, Representative. I think, really, what 
it comes down to is recognizing tribes as sovereigns and 
recognizing that they have that special geographical, 
historical, and cultural connections to park lands, and the 
tribes have the traditional ecological knowledge and practices 
regarding resource management that have been handed down 
through generations, as we have said before.
    What is important here is, looking at that 638 contracting, 
I have been talking with Assistant Secretary Newland, DOI 
Solicitor's Office, about how we can more effectively use the 
annual funding agreements, the AFAs, to be able to support 
direct funding in those co-management and those cooperative 
agreements. And I think that will help build capacity with 
tribes, because that is the other missing link sometimes, is 
being able to ensure that they have the funding necessary, the 
capacity necessary, in order to be that partner that can bring 
that traditional ecological knowledge, that can bring those 
years of practice, and to bring their staff out onto the field 
to help us figure out how to better manage the flora and fauna.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you. I hear you loud and clear. So, we, 
as authorizers and appropriators, have a job to do to make sure 
that tribes have the tools in their toolbox, both in 
authorization and in appropriations. Thank you for that.
    Mr. Chair, with your permission I will be leaving to attend 
the funeral of my colleague from Minnesota, Mr. Hagedorn. No 
disrespect to this wonderful hearing that you have put 
together, any of the people testifying, or any of my 
colleagues. I will be on as long as I can. Thank you.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady yields and thank you very 
much. Let me recognize Representative Obernolte.
    You are recognized, sir.
    Mr. Obernolte. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank 
you for the fascinating hearing.
    Director Sams, let me add my voice to the congratulations 
on the new position, and I certainly look forward to working 
closely with you. As you probably know, I represent two of your 
institutions that we are very proud of, the Mojave National 
Preserve and the Joshua Tree National Park.
    My first question I would like to ask is--regards to those, 
as I am sure you are aware, we have substantial deferred 
maintenance issues in those parks. The Joshua Tree National 
Park has over $60 million of deferred maintenance, and Mojave 
almost $120 million. And, unfortunately, in the first two 
rounds of funding under the Great American Outdoors Act, we 
haven't seen any money at all awarded to those particular 
institutions.
    So, first, I hope I can secure your commitment to work with 
us in getting that backlog of deferred maintenance needs 
addressed at those two parks.
    Mr. Sams. Thank you, Congressman. Absolutely. My wife is 
actually from Palm Springs and she loves the park there, so we 
regularly go and visit, and I am hoping to get out to Joshua 
Tree in May to go and look at that deferred maintenance. I am 
hoping to also get down to Death Valley and several others 
while I am out West.
    But, yes, I am committed to working with you and your staff 
to figure out how we can get to this backlog of deferred 
maintenance so that people can continue to enjoy that park in 
so many ways.
    Mr. Obernolte. Great. Well, I am very happy to hear that 
and I know that my constituents will be also, and certainly 
welcome you in May. And if you would extend an invitation when 
you are going to be there, I would love to join you out there, 
and we can show you all of the good work those parks are doing 
and the work that needs to be done.
    Second question as regards your new role, as a tribal 
member I think you bring some valuable experience to the 
discussion with tribal co-management, and I think this has been 
a fascinating hearing with respect to that. I want to talk 
about the fact that this landscape can often be complicated. We 
have tribal entities that are federally recognized, we have 
tribal entities that are in the process of being federally 
recognized, and then we have entities that have not been 
federally recognized.
    Can you talk a little bit about how you navigate that 
landscape and whether or not the Department has the authority 
to negotiate with tribes and enter into co-management with 
tribes that lack that Federal recognition?
    Mr. Sams. Thank you, Congressman. First and foremost, those 
that are constitutionally recognized through treaties, through 
Executive Orders, we have to make sure that we are consulting 
with them on a government-to-government basis.
    Those tribes that are state recognized or working through 
recognition, we still want to work with them, and our 
Secretarial Order gives us some direction on being able to work 
with those tribes in a stakeholder role. But, of course, they 
also possess a lot of traditional ecological knowledge. So, we 
have an opportunity to work with a number of their elders and 
their practitioners on bringing that knowledge to the 
forefront.
    That being said, we recognize that they have an 
obligation--that those tribes are going to go through their 
process in order to get Federal recognition. But that doesn't 
mean that we aren't going to have an opportunity to sit down 
and listen to their concerns also.
    Mr. Obernolte. Right. Well, it certainly seems like a 
reasonable approach.
    Then lastly, I would like to talk a little bit about your 
philosophy of wildfire management in our national parks. I am 
sure you will hear from the park rangers when you visit Joshua 
Tree that sometimes the designation of wilderness areas can 
really interfere with our ability to do wildfire management, 
particularly as respects fuels reduction, just because of some 
of the restrictions on using even powered hand tools in those 
locations.
    Do you think that we need kind of a third designation for 
some of the lands that preserves our ability to protect those 
lands from access, but at the same time allows us to use some 
more tools and maybe mechanized access for the purpose of fuels 
reduction?
    Mr. Sams. First and foremost, I always liked the term, 
``wild.'' That term in most of Indian Country is ``home,'' 
rather than the word ``wild.''
    But that being said, I started my career in trail building 
with the Forest Service and firefighting. My son currently is a 
wildland firefighter during the summer months. So, when I look 
at that, and making sure we have those resources there, I think 
that the issue you are bringing up is one that we have to 
figure out how to tackle, how to do fuels reduction.
    I am looking forward to working with the NPS staff. We are 
gearing up, of course, for a fire season. I come from the West, 
where we have seen massive fires over the last 3 years that 
have blackened our skies, and I look forward to working with 
Congress to figure out how we can have more tools in our tool 
chest to be able to combat this and prevent it before it 
happens.
    Mr. Obernolte. Great. We are looking forward to working 
with you. Congratulations on the new role, and certainly let me 
know when you are going to be in the district, because I would 
love to accompany you and meet you personally.
    Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, I would yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields, thank you. Let me 
recognize the gentlelady from New Mexico, Representative 
Stansbury.
    Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is wonderful to 
be with you all this morning, and I would like to take just a 
moment here to welcome our New Mexicans who are here today.
    Lieutenant Governor, it is wonderful to see you. Thank you 
for joining us. And also, we have Kevin Washburn, who is 
joining on the second panel. It is always a good day to see New 
Mexicans on our panels.
    And I also want to add my congratulations to you, Director 
Sams. I think that it is a new day in Washington, and your 
appointment to this role, your amazing expertise and service, 
and your willingness to step up and play this role is so 
crucial, especially at this historical moment, as conservation 
is really, I think, a transition period, and we are really 
rethinking the way we think about public lands, we are thinking 
about conservation, we are thinking about co-creation of 
knowledge, co-management, and all of those things. So, your 
expertise that you bring is so crucial in that way.
    And I was listening to the testimony this morning, and I 
was reflecting. During the Obama administration, I worked at 
OMB and one of the rulemakings that I had the opportunity to 
work on was removal of language from a national parks rule that 
actually made it illegal for Indigenous people to collect 
plants and animals for ceremonial purposes in our national 
parks land. That was less than a decade-and-a-half ago. If you 
think about in the historic trajectory of our country, I think 
many Americans would be shocked to know that there are still 
rules and regulations on our books across our Federal agencies 
that do not recognize that our Federal lands are Indigenous 
lands, and that actually prohibit activities that keep our 
Native communities from using lands that they have used, 
managed, stewarded, cared for, and prayed on since time 
immemorial.
    So, the crucial work of decolonizing, repatriating, co-
managing, and ensuring that we are creating collaborative ways 
to do all of this work is really particularly crucial, I think, 
right now, and especially in the context of our national parks. 
So, I salute you, Director Sams, for your work, and am grateful 
that you are there.
    To that end, I am one of the two representatives--well, 
actually three, I think--that might be here today from New 
Mexico. And as we have heard and we know, New Mexico is home to 
23 Indigenous communities, tribes, and pueblos, and our tribes 
and pueblos have been here since time immemorial, thousands of 
years, have lived on, worked the lands, cared for the lands, 
prayed on the lands, and those lands are Indigenous, and our 
landscapes tell the stories, and our Federal lands include 
those landscapes. They are sacred places, they are places that 
are still used for ceremonial purposes.
    Likewise, our lands and waters are also sacred and the 
wildlife that traverses these different systems. So, ensuring 
that our tribes have not only a seat at the table, but that 
their knowledge, practices, and priorities are really at the 
center of that work is so critically important.
    And we already see that across New Mexico. We have pueblos 
in the middle Rio Grande that are heavily involved in the 
management of our Rio Grande and the water systems. Many of our 
pueblos, like Jemez, Cochiti, and Santo Domingo, are doing 
important work and important co-management around restoration 
of our national forests, and just a tremendous amount of 
important work happening with the Navajo Nation and our Apache 
Nations, as well.
    So, I would like to just ask Director Sams, as you have the 
50,000-foot view of your work at the National Park Service and 
your collaboration with other Federal agencies, what do you see 
as being sort of the critical next step to fostering this kind 
of co-management in terms of, like I said, repatriating lands, 
making it possible for tribes to have a greater seat at the 
table, not just consultation, but actually helping to shape and 
inform the kind of management that is happening, and the kinds 
of true partnerships and collaborations that are needed to 
realize this vision on the ground?
    Mr. Sams. Thank you, Representative. I think it is summed 
up in one word: education.
    As you alluded to, much of this has been missing from our 
history books, and that understanding that tribes are 
sovereign. Within the Federal system, within our republic, you 
have the Federal Government, the state governments, and tribal 
governments. And those three sovereigns all have rights and 
responsibilities.
    So, being able to not only ensure that my workforce has 
that education and understanding of their trust responsibility, 
but working with my sister agencies, and working with our 
partners out there so that they ensure, when the tribes come 
there, they understand why they are at the table, why their 
voice is important, and the obligations we have as Federal 
agencies to ensure that their voice is heard.
    Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Director. And I know I am out of 
time here, but I just want to make one comment, which is that 
myself and Representative Leger Fernandez had the joy of 
joining our Madam Secretary Haaland at Chaco Canyon a few 
months ago, and I grew up in Farmington. Actually, I am not far 
from Chaco Canyon. And I was struck on that visit by the way in 
which the conversation has dramatically changed, and how the 
voices of the pueblo leadership that were there that day, and 
the Dine leadership were not only a part of that celebration, 
but the stories of the people who lived in that landscape are 
now actually a part of the narrative, which for so long has 
been erased from our national parks and our public places.
    So, I think that in addition to the co-management, making 
sure that Indigenous stories, voices, and the importance of 
those landscapes is also made known to our non-Indigenous 
communities is so crucial, as well. I really honor and salute 
your service. And, again, thank you, Lieutenant Governor, for 
being here today.
    And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for hosting this important 
hearing. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much. The gentlelady yields. 
Let me recognize Representative Rosendale.
    You are recognized, sir.
    Mr. Rosendale. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Ranking Member 
Westerman, for putting this hearing together today.
    Also, I would like to thank all the witnesses for joining 
us and for your testimony on these important issues.
    Montana is home to eight recognized tribes, so we certainly 
understand the importance of tribal co-management. I would like 
to start with Mr. Baker.
    Can you describe how co-management of the Federal lands 
benefits both your community and the Federal Government?
    Mr. Baker. Well, I think if we have both mutual interests 
on the land that we border, then we have to work together as 
partners to do the right thing.
    I think today is a new day. Everything we talk about we 
have to do better for our country. We have to work better with 
each other. We have to be sponsoring each other and helping 
each other in a positive way more and less in a negative way. 
Less barriers of how we can get things done. And a lot has been 
said today about that.
    And I think, yes, we can work together in a positive way. 
Regular communication and consultation with Federal partners, 
local and state governments, and private landowners helps 
provide consistency with resource management and development.
    Again, the key is communication. As an example, these 
cooperative and collaborative arrangements, the tribe has 
entered into memorandum of agreements with the Federal, state, 
and local governments, covering a variety of subject matters, 
including oil and gas management, road maintenance, law 
enforcement, social services, wildlife management, and air 
quality.
    So, again, there is no time to stall. We have to really 
move forward and work collaboratively. If we have the same 
mindset, we can move mountains, we can get a lot done, rather 
than place the barriers.
    And we have shared many goals, we have a shared vision, 
because we all want the right thing at the end of the day.
    Mr. Rosendale. Sir, I appreciate that. And the large 
landscapes that we are talking about, no, they don't recognize 
the boundaries between the Federal lands and the tribal lands. 
So, when we start having these discussions about the different 
resources that are located between those areas, again, they go 
across those lines.
    When we start talking about the management, the range 
management of those areas, the waterways, the fires that many 
times cross those lines, that interaction is critically 
important. Let me ask you, how is your relationship with the 
Federal agencies at the Department of the Interior, such as the 
BIA and the BLM?
    Mr. Baker. I think we have a great relationship with all 
entities. At times, we do have shortfalls. But it seems like, 
at the end of the day, the big shortfalls are lack of funding. 
Like if we had a wildfire, we have the Forest Service, we have 
the BIA, we have our own tribal forestry. So, everybody 
collaborates in a good way.
    The Southern Ute Indian Tribe prides itself on its inter-
governmental relationships. The Southern Ute Indian Reservation 
is a perfect example of all-hands-on-deck when a wildfire 
ignites. Due to the checkerboard status of our reservation, we 
share our community response with our Federal partners, local 
municipalities, and private landowners. When a wildfire is 
reported, all local agencies respond. And as we move into the 
new technology in regard to, say, broadband, we are not doing 
it just for our reservation. We need that. We are doing it for 
our community, for the schools. Everybody who can take a part 
of that.
    Some may not know--even Representatives from New Mexico--
when we talk about our wildlife, we work with the pueblos. We 
offer traditional hunts for some of the pueblo tribes that come 
up and harvest off our reservation, because they don't have 
maybe as much of those animals. So, we work with that because, 
at the end of the day, like we have always said, for us, those 
are not our animals, they are Mother Nature's. But it is up to 
us to manage those animals correctly. The animals, as 
mentioned, they know no state lines, again, but we have to 
protect each other.
    We work well with our sister tribes, the Jicarilla Apache 
Tribe, and, again, an example of wildfires.
    I think that the bad part is the lack of funding for our 
reservation roads. And I, being a former firefighter and being 
out in the mountains where our old growth is, I see that, and I 
keep telling my leadership, if we don't fix those roads and 
there is a lightning strike, we are not going to get there. And 
sometimes, we have to take on those responsibilities on our 
own, with our own funding and our own resources to fix culverts 
and do things. And that even goes for our elders who are 
gathering the mountains.
    The local, say our Tulare County law enforcement, if there 
is a shooting or a theft or something happening on our 
reservation lands, really, without broadband there is no 
communication. So, we have to do our best to work together. And 
we have great working relationships. We meet with the state of 
Colorado every 2 weeks with the Lieutenant Governor's office. 
We are meeting with the Archuleta County Commissioners. We meet 
with our La Plata County Commissioners. We meet with a lot of 
different local agencies that, again, we are all striving for 
the same thing, for better things in our area. But we have 
great working relationships.
    Mr. Rosendale. Thank you so much for your input.
    And Mr. Chair, I see my time has expired. I would yield 
back.
    The Chairman. Thank you, sir. The gentleman yields. Let me 
recognize Representative Soto.
    You are recognized, sir.
    Mr. Soto. Thank you, Chairman, for the opportunity.
    We know we are in tough times throughout the world with 
Russian President Vladimir Putin viciously and unjustifiably 
attacking Ukraine. We have faced attack on our democracy 
abroad, and Democrats and Republicans need to stand together. 
We trained and armed Ukrainians, and this week I am excited to 
vote on a package of bills to help with military and 
humanitarian relief, forwarding planes through NATO allies, and 
a ban on Russian oil imports. That is relevant to this hearing, 
of course, as we are talking about all being concerned about 
rising gas prices as a result of the Ukrainian invasion.
    And there are over 9,000 unused leases representing what 
the U.S. Government has put out there, and harnessing those 
should be one of the priorities, as well as President Biden 
releasing an additional 30 million barrels from the Strategic 
Reserves.
    Our tribes are a key part of this. We heard from so many 
folks today about everything from helping provide for the food 
supply to ecology to, yes, energy. So, those relationships and 
that stewardship that our Native American tribes understand 
better than anybody, as Native Americans, is a critical part of 
what we are talking about here today.
    Honorable Chuck Sams, III, Director, in your testimony you 
mention legislation empowers the Seminole Tribe in Florida and 
the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida with customary 
rights and the right to refuse visitors to the Big Cypress 
National Preserve. This is a key part of Florida and of our 
local tribes in the Sunshine State.
    You also mentioned that, although the tribes have the 
authority to pursue co-management agreements, neither have 
expressed an interest in doing so yet.
    But how does the National Park Service work with tribal 
governments to build their capacity to engage in co-management 
in places like the Big Cypress National Preserve?
    Mr. Sams. Thank you, Congressman. Two weeks ago, we began 
that discussion. It was back in my very first government-to-
government consultation. I went directly and met with the 
tribal leadership to begin those discussions on how that is 
going to move forward.
    But more importantly, for the staff, it is to provide them 
that training so that they understand those obligations to do 
that consultation.
    Down at Big Cypress, they already have the agreement that 
was provided through legislation to go ahead and harvest 
traditional foods and medicines. But they are also looking at 
ways to be interpreters within the park. They already provide 
some fan boats for their own work there, but they are very 
excited about looking at how to expand that.
    And I think that, in talking with my staff out in the 
field, they are also excited about the ideas and opportunities 
to really be able to engage in consultation, to make sure that 
consultation is meaningful, and hopefully end up, then, with 
those cooperative agreements, so that there is that joint 
working together, and also working together with those states 
who are involved, so that we ensure that we are covering all of 
our bases in how we manage the flora and fauna.
    Mr. Soto. President Biden had just announced $1 billion to 
help fund, on a Federal level, the restoration of the 
Everglades as part of our CERP plan. It was the biggest 
investment from the Federal level in the Everglades in decades.
    How critical is it, as we are going forward, to help with 
water quality issues, with water supply, to work with our local 
tribes like the Seminole Tribe and the Miccosukee Tribe?
    Mr. Sams. Thank you, Congressman. I come from the West, 
where water is also critically important, and I see how 
critically important it is to Southern Florida. The project, an 
undertaking between the multiple partners, whether it is the 
tribes, the Seminole, the Miccosukee, or whether it is National 
Park Service or our partners at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife, in 
the state, I think this project is extremely critical to ensure 
that the flow of water returns back to its natural state, 
heading out and south, back out into the Keys and to the 
southern tip of Florida. But it also will increase the health 
and the vitality of the ecosystem there, and it brings back 
ecosystem function into the system.
    The work that the staff are doing down there truly amazed 
me. The cooperative agreements that they have from the multiple 
jurisdictions, including local municipalities and counties, is 
extremely impressive. Everyone seems to be moving forward with 
that goal, with that funding in mind to ensure that water 
quality improves, that there is sufficient water not only for 
human consumption, but also for multi-species use.
    Mr. Soto. Well, we are very excited about this important 
investment for Florida's environment, tourism, and particularly 
our water supply, and we want to continue to stress working 
with our local tribes, among other residents in the state.
    Thank you, Director Sams, I appreciate it.
    And I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you. The gentleman yields.
    I believe, Representative Stauber, you are recognized.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you Mr. Chair and Ranking Member 
Westerman, for holding this hearing.
    I have heard a couple of my colleagues talk about leasing 
of wells. Leasing and actually permitting are two different 
things. So, when we talk about permitting, we must allow those 
folks that have the leases to be allowed to go through the 
permitting process.
    And we know that energy security is national security, and 
it appears that the President has just banned the importing of 
Russian gas moments ago. That is certainly a good start. Now we 
need to unleash the economic energy that we have in our 
country. Again, energy security is national security.
    Chairman Baker, thank you for joining us today. First of 
all, thank you for the work that you do to develop the 
resources you are blessed with in Utah.
    I saw the Ute Tribe recently joined the Western States and 
Tribal Nations Natural Gas Initiative. To start, can you please 
share how accessing your own resources benefits economic 
development for your tribe?
    Mr. Baker. Yes. I think, by developing our own, again, it 
leads to self-determination on what we can do. It is a struggle 
when we have to deal with local agencies and governments as we 
move forward. But also for us, we have to work with our 
membership. Again, our tribal members are stewards of the land, 
and they want to protect it.
    We have an issue on our eastern side of the reservation, 
where we know there are resources available, but it is pristine 
area for wildlife and stuff. So, how do we balance that? When 
you have, say, a fence line that separates tribal lands from 
fee land or private land, what we have had to learn is that, if 
we do not make a decision to move forward and educate our 
membership along the way, other private companies can come in 
and drill next to us, and take all the reserves out of our 
tribal lands, and that could be a loss of millions of dollars 
for our tribal community or our tribal reservation.
    Again, education and health for our members--when we are 
developing and we are successful, that is where that self-
determination comes in. We help our education, the education of 
our younger generation, as well as the health for our tribe. 
So, those are vital things that keep us going and moving us 
forward.
    But, again, we have to balance that out to--do we give up 
the opportunity to get something or--again, with the horizontal 
drilling, that is a newer technology that we are really trying 
to educate our membership on, because it is a chess game all 
the time, right or wrong, but we always do the right thing. And 
we only have one reservation, so we have to protect it and do 
the best we can to preserve it.
    Mr. Stauber. Those dollars that come in as a result of the 
oil and gas economic development, can you just name some of the 
things you use those dollars for on your tribal reservation?
    Mr. Baker. We have our own private tribal academy for our 
younger students, and we try to educate the emphasis on our 
language. We have our own health center here, which we always 
have to provide. We work well, as mentioned, with the 
community. When COVID was a big thing, our local clinic here 
opened it up to even Fort Lewis College and other schools in 
the area that are not affiliated with the tribe. But we did 
many things to do that. We have a great wildlife management 
resource. All the wildlife we have on the reservation, we have 
to protect them. We have our own EPD department, environmental 
protection, whether it is air, water, all those things. We have 
our own law enforcement, our justice and regulatory.
    So, those are some of the ways that the money is used. We 
have a scholarship program for our students that gives them the 
opportunity to go to a college and funds them.
    Mr. Stauber. Yes, Chairman Baker, that is really an 
impressive list, from education to health care to law 
enforcement to clean water--you are doing well with that.
    One of the goals of the initiative is to help America 
export our energy. Right now, Russia is funding its atrocities 
abroad because the world is reliant on their oil. How can we 
help you and the initiative make it easier to develop and 
export our energy, so we are no longer buying Russian energy or 
Saudi Arabia or Venezuelan energy, for that matter?
    Mr. Baker. Well, I think, again, the funding is a big 
thing. New technology, as we move forward. We are working on 
the Coyote Clean Energy Project, carbon capture. But now it is 
kind of like we are having to go backward because of the oil, 
or the gas, that we don't want to depend on foreign countries.
    But working together, like I said, communicating, working 
together, having these big meetings and keeping in mind that, 
again, we can get things done using our expertise, we have 
highly paid professionals and engineers and all those that work 
for us that help us develop that.
    And, again, we have to make sure that they are doing the 
right thing in the right way and removing some of the red tape 
that does hamper us in certain areas.
    But, again, working together, talking together, we can 
overcome those hurdles.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Chairman Baker.
    Mr. Chair, my time is up, and I yield back.
    The Chairman. Let me recognize Representative Gonzalez-
Colon.
    You are recognized for 5 minutes.
    [Pause.]
    The Chairman. If not, let me move down the list and 
recognize Representative Bentz for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I just want to begin by commenting on something that Chair 
Huffman mentioned about how simple it would be for us to switch 
over to clean energy and ignore the need for natural gas and 
oil. I would just say this is creating one dependency for 
another because clean energy, of course, requires aluminum, 
graphite, copper, lead. And a quick glance at the source of 
those minerals reveals that China and Russia are supplying 
something over 60 percent of each of those necessary elements 
of clean energy, not to mention the fact that it is going to 
take years to get there.
    So, in the short run, we need the oil and gas that is 
available, whether it is on tribal lands or on Federal lands, 
and we need it now. And to suggest that somehow we should all 
rely on clean energy, it reminds me of this young mother, a 
single mother, I believe, who I saw at the service station in 
the middle of my district, who had $15 to buy gas. And that was 
about 3 weeks ago. I can just imagine what she is doing now.
    So, I just want to say, let's focus our attention on the 
reality that faces so many people, and not make these allusions 
to how wonderful it would be if we suddenly had nothing but 
clean energy. I mean, sure, it would be great, but I don't want 
to trade one dependency for another.
    With that, I am going to turn to Director Sams.
    And Director Sams, it is great to see a fellow Oregonian. 
Congratulations. This is the first time I have gotten to see 
you in person since your appointment. I am so happy that you 
have this job.
    But let me turn away from the congratulations and ask you 
the tough question, and here it is. We often hear words like 
``collaboration,'' ``consultation,'' ``coordination.'' They are 
all words that creep toward the fact that somebody has to be in 
charge, and usually it is the sovereign. And I have heard much 
said in today's hearing about sovereign, sovereignty, and it is 
all very important. But at some point, somebody has to be able 
to make the decision. If you have two sovereigns in the room, 
it is kind of hard to know who is in charge.
    So, my question to you is, now that you are wearing the 
National Park Service hat, if tribes come in and they say, hey, 
we are equal to you, who gets to decide?
    Mr. Sams. Thank you, Congressman, it is great to see you, 
and I do owe you a visit, so I will come up to see you soon.
    That being said, it really does depend. Tribes have, of 
course, reserved rights under treaties, and sometimes reserved 
rights under Executive Order. With over 576 tribes, that can be 
an issue that we have to tackle, and we have to look at the 
legalities of that.
    But from a Federal standpoint, we ultimately have the 
responsibility of representing the interests of the American 
people, and we take that interest very seriously.
    But we also, though, still have the trust responsibility 
that we are mandated by those treaties that have been ratified 
by the Senate, to uphold those laws of the land also. So, we 
recognize that treaties, as ultimate law of the land, may 
supersede some of our decision making. We also have to go back 
to the Organic Act and look at how we are interpreting and 
enforcing the Organic Act for the Park Service, and also those 
Organic Acts that have actually set up specific parks, because 
those may negate or lessen other abilities for tribes at times 
to exercise their full authority.
    That being said, that is why it is extremely important that 
we do have government-to-government consultation, and that when 
we do have disagreements, we do our best to work through those 
disagreements. But there are times where we do recognize that 
those disagreements end up having to go before the courts for 
arbitration and decision making. But we get through much of 
that through just mutual work and mitigating for circumstances.
    Mr. Bentz. Kind of challenging, and that is one of the 
reasons I am so happy you have that job, because you can see 
both sides of the issue.
    You also hold a Masters of Legal Studies in Indigenous 
People's Law. Do you see, given that kind of a background and 
all the years you have worked in this space, a way to use the 
tribes' political power to get back into the woods and start 
removing some of this massive buildup of fuel? And I am not 
talking just about the forests that are owned by or controlled 
by tribes. I am talking about our national forests. Do you see 
some opportunity there for tribes to play a part in getting 
past all the barriers that have been built up?
    Mr. Sams. Down south in Arizona, we have a tribal youth 
corps. We also have other tribal youth corps we are doing 
cooperatively. Those tribal youth corps that are working with 
the National Park Service and with cooperation through tribes 
really could be that ground force that we need to go in there 
and do some fuels reduction, in cooperation with our other 
Federal partners and agencies. So, yes, I think the tribes have 
the ability to help us start up these youth corps to be able to 
get in there and get some of this work done.
    There are other authorities under other sections of law 
that are not necessarily with the National Park Service, but 
with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. I won't speak to those 
directly, but I do know, as a former tribal administrator, that 
there are tools that tribes have that they could be using to 
help do fuel reduction so that we have less large 
conflagrations.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Director Sams.
    With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Let me now recognize Representative Graves. You are 
recognized, sir.
    Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I have 
heard a number of people say thank you for having this hearing. 
I disagree.
    Mr. Chairman, we have a crisis going on in Ukraine and 
Russia. We have a crisis going on right here in the United 
States. This Committee has jurisdiction over our energy 
resources, this Committee. We have the highest gasoline prices, 
the highest energy prices in American history right now.
    Mr. Chairman, I have offered amendments in this Committee 
asking that we not carry out policies that have a 
disproportionate impact on Native American communities, on 
communities of color, on communities of low economic activity. 
Mr. Chairman, these are the people that are harmed most by what 
is happening.
    And what is worse about all this, all of this is 
preventable. We have seen the President come out today and say 
that, oh, I am supporting a Russian ban. Mr. Chairman, you know 
what is not said? It is that for the last 3 years myself, Mr. 
Carl, Mr. Moore, Mr. Rosendale, and others on the Committee 
have offered amendments to ensure America's energy security. We 
have done amendments to explicitly ban Russian oil from 
increased imports or increased reliance in the United States.
    Mr. Chairman, every single member on your side of the aisle 
opposed the amendments. And, now, all of a sudden, everybody is 
on board with a Russian ban? Now we do a Russian ban, we don't 
have a way to backfill the energy. So, what is going to happen? 
You think prices are high now? Just wait. We are getting ready 
to further penalize Americans, further penalize the U.S. 
economy because energy has an impact on everything. It 
transcends everything.
    This is the Committee that can actually design an energy 
solution. And we are not prioritizing our actions, not 
prioritizing this Committee's jurisdiction.
    This is an embarrassment, Mr. Chairman. We have Americans 
all across the United States. Before this whole thing happened, 
one in every six Americans--one in every six Americans--said 
they couldn't afford to fully pay their energy. One in every 
four Americans said they had to sacrifice some other primary 
need in order to cover energy costs.
    There is an article on the front page of my hometown paper 
today. A guy filled up his truck, $105, and we have some of the 
cheapest gas in America at home.
    Mr. Chairman, the President came out and said, don't worry, 
he is going to release 30 million barrels from the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve. We have 38 billion barrels of reserves 
across the United States, of proven reserves across the United 
States. Why don't we look at that and figure out which of that 
energy we can be producing? Why don't we figure out how to 
address whatever concerns are out there, legitimate or not, 
about the Keystone pipeline? We can't just ban oil and think 
that all of a sudden it is going to solve problems. We don't 
have an energy strategy.
    And Members on our side have tried and tried and tried to 
offer improvements, to offer amendments, to offer solutions, 
and all we have seen is policies that have resulted in just 
like we predicted. Everything that is happening right now are 
things that we predicted: higher prices, less energy security, 
and, Mr. Chairman, higher emissions, higher emissions.
    This is an embarrassment. We had achieved energy security, 
Mr. Chairman. This Committee needs to exercise its 
jurisdiction, exercise its jurisdiction over America's natural 
resources, over the opportunities to produce American energy.
    And we can make up for the mistakes of our European allies, 
as well. The strategy in the United States have been Schumer, 
Markey, and others asking that OPEC produce more energy; Jake 
Sullivan, the President's National Security Advisor, asking 
OPEC to produce more energy; reports of us going to Saudi 
Arabia and negotiating an awful deal with Iran right now; 
Administration officials going to Venezuela to ask them.
    That is our solution, to ask--let's go through this again. 
Iran, what are they doing? They are using those dollars to 
challenge Israeli security in the Middle East, to disrupt the 
entire Middle Eastern region of this world, threatening the 
security of Israel. Look at what they are doing in Syria, what 
they are doing in Yemen, what they are doing in Iraq. And we 
are going to fund them more? Look at what Maduro is doing in 
Venezuela. We are going to give them more money?
    This doesn't make any sense. My friends in California, they 
say, ``Hey, don't worry, we are going to close our nuclear 
power plant,'' then turn around and say, ``Hey, can we release 
more emissions?''
    I mean, all of these strategies are failing. They make no 
sense at all.
    Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask. We have to use this 
Committee's jurisdiction on true priorities and address this 
humanitarian crisis right now in the United States.
    Director Sams, for the record I would like for you to 
submit an explanation of what the U.S.--excuse me, what the 
National Park Service is doing to consult on energy 
opportunities adjacent to Park Service boundaries. It is one of 
the things that the Park Service does. What are you doing to 
help tribes exercise their own self-determination as it relates 
to developing energy resources?
    I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields. And there are no 
further Members that have questions, so I want to thank this 
panel. I appreciate it very much.
    And I am going to deal with the debate that is occurring 
and needs to occur, but let me just talk about what we were 
trying with this meeting.
    I support tribal sovereignty. The intent of these 
discussions is not about undercutting tribal sovereignty. In 
fact, Chair Baker provided expertise to the Committee in the 
past to ensure that any legislation considers just that. And it 
did. And I appreciate the feedback, and I appreciate his 
testimony today.
    But as we go into the issue of tribal co-management on 
Federal lands, this full scope of Federal responsibilities are 
also part of that discussion, very much so.
    And I also want to thank the Director. And my request is 
this, as you examine how we promote this very valuable and 
important--there is the resource issue, there is the 
organizational culture that needs to change, and then there is 
enhanced legislative authority or to clarify some issues. So, 
on the legislative side, it would be important also for the 
Committee to know your suggestions and your ideas on that, as 
well.
    And to the witnesses, thank you so much. We will now 
transition to the next panel.
    Members may send you and you may receive questions of 
Members that were not able to ask, and they will be forwarded 
to you, and we would appreciate your timely response.
    With that, thank you again, and let's, if we can, 
transition to the other panel.
    [Recess.]
    The Chairman. We will now begin with the second panel, and, 
again, let me thank the witnesses for the time that they are 
giving to this discussion. It is very much appreciated by all 
of us. It is essentially the same instructions that were given 
to the previous panel. Your entire statements will be part of 
the record.
    You have 5 minutes for the oral presentation. The timer 
will alert you when you have 1 minute left, but red always 
tells you it is over.
    After your testimony is complete, please mute yourself so 
that you don't have background noise on the other witnesses' 
discussion.
    With that, let me begin the testimony with Professor Kiel, 
Assistant History Professor at Northwest University.
    Professor, thank you so much, and you are invited to 
present your testimony.

  STATEMENT OF DOUG KIEL, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF 
      HISTORY, NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY, EVANSTON, ILLINOIS

    Dr. Kiel. [Speaking Native language.] Hello, everyone. 
Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member Westerman, and members of the 
Committee, thank you for the invitation to testify before this 
Committee today.
    The topic of today's hearing is, most of all, about 
respect. And in the brief time that I have, I won't go into 
detail about what you know: that all of North America is 
Indigenous homeland and that the United States acquired those 
ancestral lands through means that were, at best, morally 
questionable and, at their worst, were genocidal in either 
intent or effect.
    Rather than address how dispossession happened and explain 
how many treaties ratified by the Senate were broken, I would 
like to emphasize that these regrettable historical events are 
characterized by a disrespect for tribal governments.
    Take the United States' founding documents as an example. 
Although the U.S. Constitution implicitly acknowledges that 
tribes are self-governing, the earlier Declaration of 
Independence labels Native Americans as ``merciless Indian 
savages.''
    Every Indigenous Nation, at one time or another, has 
learned of this duplicity. The Oneida people, for instance, 
were some of the United States' only Native American allies in 
the Revolutionary War. Yet, even the promises of George 
Washington were not enough to secure our homelands in New York.
    The disrespect of Indigenous peoples has extended and 
continues to extend to even our knowledge systems. And for this 
reason, the tribal co-management of Federal lands would provide 
a meaningful way to re-ground government-to-government 
relations with respect.
    What we refer to as traditional ecological knowledge, TEK, 
is Indigenous science, and it should be respected as such. It 
brings a depth of place-based experience that non-Native 
Americans simply do not possess. It is this kind of science 
that led Indigenous peoples to explore the Pacific Ocean 
generations before Europeans, to selectively breed corn and 
create one of the most cultivated crops on Earth, and to engage 
in controlled burning of the landscape.
    The United States holds Indigenous resources in trust. And 
adequately taking our knowledge into consideration is part of 
the Federal Indian trust responsibility first articulated in 
Cherokee Nation of Georgia in 1831.
    And as outlined in Seminole Nation v. United States in 
1942, the United States ``has charged itself with moral 
obligations of the highest responsibility and trust'' when 
exercising its power in regards to Indian affairs. That trust 
has been shattered numerous times before.
    Today's dialogue belongs in a wider international context. 
In 2007, the United Nations adopted the Declaration on the 
Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The United States initially voted 
against it in the U.N. General Assembly but has lent its 
support to the Declaration since 2010. This resolution is 
legally non-binding, but it nonetheless outlines human rights 
norms in regards to Indigenous populations. The Declaration is 
the product of over two decades of negotiation, and it 
describes the Indigenous world as it should be.
    I raise the U.N. Declaration to underscore that the matters 
before you extend beyond the United States' Federal trust 
responsibility to its Indigenous treaty partners, and 
intersects with international human rights law, as well.
    By having this dialogue, we are enacting the spirit of 
Article 18 of the U.N. Declaration, ``that Indigenous peoples 
have the right to participate in decision-making matters which 
would affect their rights.''
    Moreover, the proposed development of tribal co-management 
intersects with Articles 8, 11, and 12 of the Declaration, to 
name just a few, in regards to providing redress for the 
dispossession of lands and the rights of Indigenous peoples to 
maintain and protect sites of religious, cultural, 
archeological, and historical significance.
    The U.N. Declaration and the Federal Indian trust 
responsibility are linked in that they both call for the 
highest level of moral obligation toward Indigenous peoples.
    In my opinion, the tribal co-management of Federal lands is 
an innovative means of sustaining productive nation-to-nation 
relations rooted in principles of good faith and genuine 
respect. Tribal consultations alone do not constitute real 
decision-making authority. What is being proposed today is 
shared governance in the interest of good governance. Thank you 
very much. I would be happy to answer any questions.

    [The prepared statement of Dr. Kiel follows:]
   Prepared Statement of Professor Doug Kiel, Northwestern University

                              Introduction

    Shekoli swakweku (Hello everyone!) Thank you for the invitation to 
testify before this Committee today. I am a citizen of the Oneida 
Nation, and an Assistant Professor History and the Humanities at 
Northwestern University. I am a faculty affiliate at Northwestern's 
Center for Native American and Indigenous Research (CNAIR) as well as 
an adjunct curator at the Field Museum in Chicago. I teach a variety of 
courses in Native American history, including the histories of federal 
Indian law and policy, and Indigenous social movements in the US and 
Canada.
    Oneida people have engaged with members of the United States 
Congress from the time your predecessors in the Continental Congress 
first began meeting in Philadelphia. Today, I am here in my capacity as 
a historian to speak about the underpinnings of the current 
relationship between Indigenous nations and the United States.

                        Histories of Disrespect

    The topic of today's hearing is most of all about respect. In the 
brief time that I have, I won't detail what you already know: that all 
of North America is Indigenous homeland; and that the United States 
acquired those ancestral lands through means that were at best morally 
questionable, and at their worst, were genocidal in either intent or 
effect. Rather than address how dispossession happened, and explain how 
many treaties ratified by the US Senate were subsequently broken, I 
would like to emphasize that these regrettable historical events are 
characterized by an American disrespect of tribal governments.
    Take the United States' founding documents as an example. Although 
the US Constitution (1789) implicitly acknowledges that tribes are 
self-governing, the earlier Declaration of Independence (1776) labels 
Native Americans as ``merciless Indian savages.'' Every Indigenous 
nation, at one time or another, has learned of this duplicity. The 
Oneida people, for instance, were some of the United States' only 
Native American allies in the Revolutionary War, yet even the promises 
of President George Washington were not enough to secure our homelands 
in central New York.
    While such stories about the chicanery of the rapidly expanding 
United States are perhaps broadly familiar, the disrespect of 
Indigenous peoples has extended to even our knowledge systems. For this 
reason, the tribal co-management of federal lands would provide a 
meaningful way to reground government-to-government relations with 
respect. What we refer to as Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) is 
Indigenous science and should be respected as such; it brings a depth 
of place-based experience that non-Native Americans simply do not 
possess. It is this kind of science that led Indigenous peoples to 
explore the Pacific Ocean generations before Europeans; to selectively 
breed corn and create one of the most cultivated crops on Earth; and to 
engage in controlled burning of the landscape.
    The United States holds Indigenous resources in trust, and 
adequately taking our knowledge into consideration is part of the 
federal Indian trust responsibility. As outlined in Seminole Nation v. 
United States (1942), the US ``has charged itself with moral 
obligations of the highest responsibility and trust'' when exercising 
its power in regards to Indian affairs.\1\ That trust has been 
shattered before. The disastrous policy experiment referred to as 
``Termination'' during the 1950s, and the events necessitating the 
historic Cobell v. Salazar (2009) $3.4 billion class-action lawsuit 
settlement are but two examples of federal obligations being grossly 
mismanaged.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Seminole Nation v. United States, 316 U.S. 286 (1942).
    \2\ Cobell v. Salazar, 573 F.3d 808 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP)

    Today's dialogue also belongs in a wider international context. In 
2007, the United Nations adopted the Declaration on the Rights of 
Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). The United States initially voted against 
it in the U.N. General Assembly, but has lent its support to the 
Declaration since 2010. This resolution is legally non-binding, but it 
nonetheless outlines human rights norms in regards to Indigenous 
populations. The Declaration is the product of over two decades of 
negotiation, a process reaching back to the 1980s, and it describes the 
Indigenous world as it should be. I raise the U.N. Declaration to 
underscore that the matters before you extend beyond the United States' 
federal trust responsibility to its Indigenous treaty partners, and 
intersect with international human rights law.
    By having this dialogue today, we are enacting the spirit of 
Article 18: ``Indigenous peoples have the right to participate in 
decision-making in matters which would affect their rights.'' \3\ 
Moreover, the proposed development of tribal co-management intersects 
with Articles 8, 11, and 12 of the Declaration--to name a few--in 
regards to providing redress for the dispossession of lands, and the 
rights of Indigenous peoples to maintain and protect sites of 
religious, cultural, archaeological, and historical significance. The 
U.N. Declaration and the federal Indian trust responsibility are linked 
in that they both call for the highest level of moral obligation toward 
Indigenous peoples.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 
Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly on 13 September 2007 
(Resolution 61/295).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               Conclusion

    In my opinion, the proposed development of tribal co-management of 
federal lands, as will be outlined by Dean Kevin Washburn, former 
Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs, is an innovative means of 
sustaining productive nation-to-nation relations rooted in principles 
of good faith and genuine respect. Tribal consultations alone do not 
constitute real decision-making authority; what Dean Washburn proposes 
is shared governance in the interest of good governance.
    Yaw-ko (Thank you very much).

                                 ______
                                 

    The Chairman. Thank you very much. Let me now turn to our 
next witness, Ms. Aja DeCoteau, Executive Director of the 
Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission.
    Ms. DeCoteau, you are recognized for 5 minutes. Thank you.

 STATEMENT OF AJA DECOTEAU, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COLUMBIA RIVER 
         INTER-TRIBAL FISH COMMISSION, PORTLAND, OREGON

    Ms. DeCoteau. Good morning, Chairman Grijalva, Ranking 
Member Moore, and members of the Committee. Thank you for this 
opportunity to recognize traditional ecological knowledge as a 
unique asset to tribal co-management of Federal lands.
    I am Aja DeCoteau. I am the Executive Director of the 
Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, which is the 
coordinating fisheries agency of the Yakama, Umatilla, Warm 
Springs, and Nez Perce Tribes in the states of Washington, 
Oregon, and Idaho.
    Tribal cultures collectively hold thousands of years of 
observations, adaptations, and traditional knowledge of 
tamanwit, which is our word for the original natural law that 
governs the balance of life on Earth. It is a spiritual 
philosophy rooted in a reciprocal and life-giving relationship 
between human beings and with the natural world around them. 
Understanding tamanwit not only provides a sustainable 
relationship with nature, but also strengthens our bond to one 
another as a community.
    For all that was taken or lost, especially for Native 
Americans, our relationship to the land and water remains, so 
our natural resources are our cultural and community resources. 
These teachings guide our land and resource management not 
solely based on economics, politics, and science, though they 
are important, but to our cultural values, spiritual practices, 
responsibilities, and obligations as humans who live close to 
the land.
    For millennia, our tribes managed the rich and plentiful 
bounty in the Pacific Northwest for 15 to 20 million salmon who 
return to the Columbia River each year prior to contact. 
Between 6 and 11 million fish supported the ceremonial, 
subsistence, and economic needs of all tribes in the region, 
while still leaving plenty to enrich the ecosystem and 
replenish that abundance.
    Treaties signed in 1855 reserved our right to fish for 
salmon. However, a variety of impacts over the following 
century decimated these runs. By the 1970s, salmon runs had 
dwindled to less than a million fish, and multiple stocks faced 
extinction. In 1977, our tribes united to collectively protect 
and restore salmon and their treaty rights to fish. They 
established the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, 
with fisheries management funds from the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs through 638 self-determination contracts. This funding 
was provided yearly with autonomy to use as we saw fit in 
creating our own modern-day salmon management presence.
    Over the following 45 years, our technical capacity has 
reached the point where we have now developed successful 
programs, including Federal Columbia River Power System 
Mitigation Projects and Endangered Species Act recovery plans. 
Our holistic salmon restoration plan, called Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-
Kish-Wit, combines multiple scientific fields and traditional 
ecological knowledge with a simple goal to put fish back in the 
rivers and restore the watersheds where fish live.
    The tribes just don't talk about salmon restoration. We are 
leading the way in innovative, successful programs that benefit 
all people in the Northwest. For example, in 1990, only 78 wild 
fall chinook returned to Idaho. Twenty-five years later, more 
than 71,000 returned, thanks to the Nez Perce Tribe's fisheries 
program.
    Collectively, our member tribes have a combined capacity on 
par with our fellow state and Federal fisheries co-managers, 
with tribal members representing a committed and reliable 
workforce motivated by culture and heritage. Our fisheries work 
employs over 700 people working throughout the 42.6 million 
acres of our reservations and ceded lands. This is over a 
quarter of the entire Columbia River Basin and 84 percent of 
the rivers and streams that are still accessible to salmon.
    We perform a majority of the on-the-ground projects funded 
by the Bonneville Power Administration's Fish and Wildlife 
Program and through the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery's 
funds. We have improved more than 5,400 miles of streams, 
reconnected over 2,000 acres of floodplains, and improved 
15,000 acres of riparian vegetation. These projects are done in 
partnership with landowners, ranchers, local and state 
governments, and multiple Federal agencies.
    Meaningful co-management entails both a seat at the table, 
as well as the capacity to fulfill this responsibility. The 
Federal funding we received facilitated our participation, and 
many times created the form from which many of the recovery 
plans in the Basin were initiated and allowed us to grow our 
tribal workforce.
    Acknowledging this, U.S. policy toward restoring tribal 
self-determination can be supported by welcoming tribes as co-
managers of their respective lands and resources and providing 
them with non-competitive and recurring funding with a broad 
scope. In return, the Federal Government gains the benefit of 
the knowledge, commitment, and cultural connection of the 
tribes to better fulfill its trust responsibility and 
obligation to wisely steward these areas.
    Healthy, well-managed public lands benefit all Americans, 
both tribal and non-tribal alike, and the work itself brings 
stakeholders into a deeper community together. The tribes have 
a strong interest to help current landowners, whether they are 
private individuals or Federal or state agencies, to maintain 
the health and productivity of our traditional homelands. 
Working together as partners, the Federal Government and tribes 
can successfully preserve, protect, and manage our lands, 
rivers, and resources for the benefit of our future 
generations. The benefits of this partnership are shared by all 
of us.
    Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. DeCoteau follows:]
 Prepared Statement of Aja DeCoteau, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish 
                               Commission
    Good morning, Chairman Grijalva and members of the Committee. My 
name is Aja DeCoteau. I am the executive director of the Columbia River 
Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, the fisheries technical and coordinating 
agency for the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, the 
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, the 
Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, and the 
Nez Perce Tribe.
    Recognizing that this hearing's primary focus is tribal co-
management of federal lands outside of reservation boundaries, we would 
like to describe how the treaty tribes became an integral part and 
partner of Columbia Basin fisheries co-management role across the 
Columbia Basin and into the ocean where many of our aquatic resources 
migrate. Much of our experience over the last 50 years is a blueprint 
for creating tribal management roles with a variety of different 
landscapes, species, and areas of cultural significance.
Tribal Tradition of Land Management

    Since time immemorial, the Columbia River tribes have developed 
ways of life, teachings, and cultures that are intertwined with their 
homeland--particularly the fish that return to their rivers and 
streams. All four tribes have unique cultural practices, dialects, 
homelands, and histories, but they share a common vision of the 
significance of salmon.
    We have a deep and reverent cultural connection to our homelands 
and traditions. The knowledge of sustainable and appropriate management 
and care for these lands has been passed down from parents to children 
since time immemorial. The fact we are still here today is testament to 
the value of generations of observations, adaptations, and traditional 
knowledge of tamanwit, our concept of the natural law that governs the 
balance of life on earth.
    Our cultures represent thousands of years of observation and 
learning, intimately connecting us to the unique ecosystems of our 
homelands and making us experts in these systems. This understanding 
guides us in our yearly rounds to hunt, fish, and gather our 
traditional foods, which we call our ``First Foods.''
    In bestowing the First Foods, the Creator directed that we have an 
obligation to speak for and act on the behalf of them. The water, the 
fish, the deer, the roots and berries can't testify before you here 
today, but we, as the first people of this landscape are obligated and 
honored to speak for them.
    We are taught that we don't own these resources. We understand from 
the earliest age that we are only caretakers of this land and its 
resources for our future generations. We have an obligation to our 
children, grandchildren, and the generations that follow to do 
everything we can for these resources today. Our natural resources are 
our cultural resources. They define who we are as a people. Destruction 
of these resources or denying us access to these resources is 
essentially a form of cultural genocide.
    There is a deep connection between where the tribes live and who we 
are. These are themes heard frequently when tribal elders speak about 
watershed restoration and bringing the salmon back to the Columbia 
Rivers and its tributaries. To our people, salmon restoration is not 
just based on economics, politics, and science--it's also about 
cultural values, spiritual practices, and ultimately about what it 
means to be human.
    The charge of tribal elders and leadership consistently remains the 
same: We must ensure that our future generations can live as Indian 
people on this landscape in the manner that the Creator intended us to 
live. That means we must not only be able to determine our own futures, 
but also have access to the healthy, functioning ecosystem upon which 
our cultures are based. This includes abundant clean, cool water; 
salmon to meet our ceremonial, subsistence, and economic needs; deer; 
roots and berries; and all the other animals, birds, fish, and plants 
that fill out our traditional diet.
Restoration Efforts and Management Actions Guided by Connection to the 
        Land

    For millennia, our tribes managed the natural abundance of this 
land, including its legendary fisheries. Pre-contact, the famed 
Columbia River salmon runs were estimated to number between 15 and 20 
million chinook, sockeye, and coho salmon and steelhead. Tribal 
harvests between 6 and 11 million fish sustainably supported all our 
ceremonial, subsistence, and economic needs, while leaving plenty to 
enrich the ecosystem and replenish that abundance.
    Since 1855 when our treaties with the United States were signed, 
the Columbia Basin has been dramatically altered. Increased human 
population, dam construction, unregulated harvest, and substantial 
habitat modifications drastically reduced salmon populations. By the 
1970s, the once-bountiful salmon runs had dwindled to less than a 
million fish returning each year and the specter of extinction hovered 
over multiple runs in the basin. While the US environmental laws helped 
stop the wholesale development of the Columbia Basin hydropower 
potential, we still faced a continued decline in the habitat and 
survival of our salmon resource.
    In 1977, the Yakama, Umatilla, Warm Springs, and Nez Perce tribes 
united forces, creating the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission 
(CRITFC) in an effort to protect and restore salmon and their treaty 
rights to fish for them. CRITFC began receiving fisheries management 
funds from the US Bureau of Indian Affairs through PL 99-638 contracts. 
These funds addressed a variety of needs including our participation in 
the US v Oregon harvest management discussion, an ability to begin the 
technical review and understanding of the watersheds that hold our 
treaty trust resource, a voice at the hydrosystem management table, and 
the genesis of hatchery production capability.
    Admittedly our early efforts were limited, and our workforce only 
numbered a few dozen across the four tribes and CRITFC. But this early 
funding was provided yearly with autonomy to use as we saw fit in 
creating our modern-day salmon management presence.
    By 1980, the four tribes had successfully obtained amendments to 
the regional power act to add fish and wildlife mitigation to the 
Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) operations, which was 
initially focused solely on hydropower production. The treaty tribes 
with their developing technical expertise, which was informed by our 
culture, values, and worldview, began successfully developing programs 
and projects which were funded as mitigation for the inundation and 
operational fish losses associated with the FCRSP.
    By the 1990s, many salmon runs in the Columbia Basin were still on 
the path to extinction. The National Atmospheric and Oceans 
Administration listed 14 Columbia River salmon stocks under the 
Endangered Species Act. While the states varied in their response to 
these listings, NOAA began developing Endangered Species Act (ESA) 
required recovery plans. Based on early experience they sought out the 
assistance of the treaty tribes who worked in close partnership with 
local city and county governments to develop technically sound and 
socially vetted actions to recovery ESA-listed salmonids.
    In 1995, the tribes released Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit, the 
``Spirit of the Salmon'' restoration plan. This plan takes a holistic 
approach to salmon restoration in the Columbia Basin, with its goal to 
``put fish back in the rivers and restore the watersheds where fish 
live.'' The approach is holistic in several ways: First, it emphasizes 
the importance of the entire watershed to well-functioning rivers and 
streams. Second, it combines multiple scientific fields--including fish 
biology, ecology, and genetics--with traditional Native American 
knowledge, understanding, and respect for the natural world. And third, 
it factors in healthy human communities as part of healthy landscapes.
    The tribes implement this plan throughout the 42.6 million acres 
that make up our reservations and ceded lands. This area is over a 
quarter of the entire Columbia Basin and constitutes 84% of the salmon-
accessible rivers and streams above Bonneville Dam. CRITFC and its four 
member tribes employ over 700 people working on fisheries management, 
habitat restoration, and research and monitoring activities in the 
Columbia Basin. We perform a majority of the ``on-the-ground'' projects 
funded by the Bonneville Power Administration's Fish and Wildlife 
Program. Our efforts have resulted in many successes across the basin.
    Our habitat restoration projects are designed to protect, enhance, 
and restore functional floodplain, channel, and watershed processes to 
provide sustainable and healthy habitat for anadromous fish. Over the 
last decade, our member tribes implemented projects that resulted in 
more than 5,000 miles of improved stream flow, 400 miles of improved 
stream complexity, reconnected over 2,000 acres of floodplain, and 
improved 15,000 acres of riparian vegetation. These projects have often 
been done in partnership with landowners and ranchers, local and state 
governments, and a number of federal agencies.
    The work we conduct in the region is well-designed and respected. 
Last month, the Northwest Power and Conservation Council reviewed over 
120 Anadromous Habitat and Hatchery Projects conducted in the region. 
Of the fourteen that were rated as ``exemplary,'' seven were projects 
conducted by scientists at CRITFC and our members tribes. Since 2010, 
CRITFC scientists have published 127 peer-reviewed manuscripts and 
given over 436 presentations at professional meetings and symposia. The 
tribes don't just talk about salmon restoration, they are leading the 
way in innovative, successful programs that benefit all of people in 
the Northwest. For example, the Snake River fall chinook went from only 
78 wild fish returning in 1990 to more than 60,000 due the efforts of 
the Nez Perce Tribe's Fisheries program.
Working as Co-managers and Partners

    Healthy, well managed lands in the Columbia Basin benefit 
everyone--not just salmon, but other fish and wildlife and human 
populations. On the principle of planning for future generations, 
tribal land managers seek to create sustainable economic returns within 
healthy watersheds. While the tribes were forced to give up ownership 
of the ceded lands, they retain permanent rights to hunting, fishing, 
and gathering in all the areas outside the reservations but within 
their traditional territories. They have a strong interest to help 
other landowners--whether they are private individuals or federal or 
state agencies--to maintain the health and productivity of the ceded 
lands. Ceding legal title to our territories didn't cede our deep love 
for and obligation to protect it.
    Sharing the management of public lands with tribal nations is an 
aspect of the Federal Government's trust responsibility to American 
Indians; it is also wise stewardship to share the management of these 
lands and resources with those who have the greatest breadth of 
knowledge of and commitment to these areas. In many instances, it has 
been the tribes who have not only the greatest interest in the 
protection and restoration of these lands, but also the greatest 
technical understanding of the needed actions.
    Historically tribes have not had the resources or capacity to fully 
participate in policy development and access to forums where natural 
resources management occurs. Reservation impoverishment meant that day-
to-day survival took precedence over expending resources into the 
technical and policy realm of resource management, especially on off-
reservation lands. Much of our success was made possible by early 
federal funding of tribal capacity. This created the ability for the 
treaty tribes to be at the table and many times created the forum from 
which these recovery plans sprung.
    Acknowledging this, US policy toward restoring tribal self-
determination can be supported with annual funding which has a broad 
scope of work geared toward natural resource management and that is 
non-competitive and recurring. Tribes, given their own unique history, 
culture, and positioning on the political landscape will use these 
resources to establish their own particular co-management presence in 
those forums most significant to them. In return, the Federal 
Government gains the benefit of the wise stewardship from those with 
the knowledge, commitment, and cultural connection to these areas.
    We would propose that the greatest tool available to allow Indian 
tribes to engage in the management of public lands and natural 
resources is to provide and maintain funding streams that enable them 
to bring their long-held ecological knowledge and contemporary science 
capacities to the management and policy tables for the shared benefit 
of tribal and non-tribal publics alike. The funding should have wide 
sideboards to address the diverse challenges we face and have 
predictable, manageable reporting requirements co-developed by the 
tribes. The funding should be recurring basis and without competition.
    A Federal commitment to support tribes and partner in public lands 
co-management over their areas will help secure and safeguard our 
natural resources for the continuity of tribal culture, as well as 
provide direct and indirect benefits for all Americans. Working 
together as partners, the Federal Government and tribes can co-manage 
the lands and resources over which we both have a shared obligation and 
duty to protect and preserve for today as well as for future 
generations.

                                 ______
                                 

    The Chairman. Thank you very much. Let me now invite and 
recognize Dean Kevin Washburn, Dean and Law Professor at the 
University of Iowa College of Law.
    Dean Washburn, you are welcome and you are recognized.

    STATEMENT OF KEVIN WASHBURN, DEAN AND PROFESSOR OF LAW, 
       UNIVERSITY OF IOWA COLLEGE OF LAW, IOWA CITY, IOWA

    Mr. Washburn. Thank you, Chairman Grijalva, and thank you, 
Ranking Member Moore, and members of the Committee, including 
old friends. My name is Kevin Washburn, and it is an honor to 
be back before this Committee. Thank you for this opportunity.
    I am impressed by what I have heard today. I hear many 
Members on both sides of the aisle speaking positively about 
tribal co-management. I also heard the Administration witness 
speaking about concrete actions being taken to pursue more co-
management. I offer the following ideas to encourage tribal co-
management of Federal public land using existing legislative 
authority that might need to be tweaked a little bit.
    I want to talk about one tool for co-management that has 
not been fully utilized by the Federal Government. Chairman 
Baker of the Southern Ute Tribe began his testimony by talking 
about the lands that Southern Ute lost during the settlement 
era under the Brunot Agreement. He described 56 million acres 
that the Southern Ute lost, and that their lands were reduced 
to only 700,000 acres today. A lot of our tribes can tell the 
same story, as our historian on the panel, Doug Kiel, explains.
    But the good news is Chairman Baker ended his testimony by 
saying, ``By working together with the public land managers, we 
can accomplish a lot.''
    Lieutenant Governor Bowekaty made a similar point. We 
should all be grateful, as I know the Committee is, for his 
leadership with the Bears Ears National Monument.
    I have come to my own views on these matters by looking at 
the kind of history the Southern Ute faced. When one looks at a 
map that showcases the loss of tribal land through the 19th and 
20th centuries and the development of Federal public lands over 
this same time period, it is the same land. It is striking how 
much overlap there is in these lands. All current Federal lands 
are former tribal lands, and some of them were obtained fairly 
recently by the Federal Government, only the last 150 years.
    Tribes have consistently sought the return of their lands 
from the Federal Government, and there is a widespread movement 
today called the Land Back Movement, aimed at finding ways to 
address these injustices that happened in the past. Congress 
recently returned a significant Fish and Wildlife Service 
refuge, the National Bison Range, to the Confederated Salish 
and Kootenai Tribe in Montana. And there may be more 
opportunities for that kind of action. As our country continues 
to reckon with historical injustices and seeks to develop 
allies in much-needed conservation efforts, more action is 
appropriate, and I want to talk about those opportunities 
today.
    Indeed, return of Federal lands may be possible in some 
instances, but I encourage all of us to think about all of the 
options on the table, and not just return. One of those is 
tribal co-management. Tribes have had treaty hunting and 
fishing and other rights on some of these lands for a very long 
time, and they care a lot about these lands, even if they 
aren't technically within reservations any longer.
    Let me note that tribal co-management can also protect 
tribal sacred sites for reasons stated in my longer paper on 
the subject.
    Broad opportunities for tribal co-management are already 
authorized by Federal laws on tribal self-determination and 
self-governance. In 1975, Congress enacted Public Law 93-638, 
the Indian Self-Determination law, and that allowed tribes to 
contract with certain Federal agencies, primarily the BIA and 
the Indian Health Service, under 638 contracts so that tribes 
could take over Federal services on Indian reservations. And 
that has been exceedingly effective, very successful.
    In 1994, Congress amended that law, expanded that 
contracting authority to allow tribal governments to contract 
with Interior agencies such as Fish and Wildlife, BLM, and the 
National Park Service. In those 1994 amendments, Congress 
authorized tribes to contract for virtually any Federal 
program, service, or function at Interior, as long as it has a 
special geographic, historical, or cultural significance to a 
tribe that is already successfully involved in these self-
determination programs.
    Similar authority was eventually extended to the Department 
of Agriculture, home to the U.S. Forest Service.
    The Department of the Interior is required by law to 
publish each year a list to identify existing contracts and 
detail the list of programs that are eligible for contracting. 
Since 1994, though, this list hasn't grown very much. I think 
there is a lot of room for improvement there, and we need to 
see that list grow. I think it would be great in supportive of 
co-management, so I have four suggested reforms.

    One is that Congress could expand Forest Service authority 
to match the authority that the Interior agencies have. It is 
currently more narrow than that.
    Second, Congress should authorize and appropriate contract 
support costs for tribes entering such contracts, or at least 
modest planning grants for tribes to explore this work.
    Third, Departments of the Interior and Agriculture should 
take a fresh look at this program, hold tribal consultations, 
perhaps on a regional basis, and begin discussions to enter new 
contracts.
    Finally, let me note that cooperation is hard, as this 
discussion says, but the Departments, both Departments, should 
incentivize Federal land managers to engage in that kind of 
cooperation.

    These are just some of the ideas of things that can be 
done. I am grateful that Chuck Sams and the National Parks is 
looking at more AFAs, and I thank you for bringing attention to 
this subject with this hearing.
    Thank you for that. This concludes my remarks.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Washburn follows:]
   Prepared Statement of Dean Kevin K. Washburn, University of Iowa 
                           College of Law\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ For identification purposes only. The testimony presented here 
is made in an individual capacity and is not made on behalf of the 
University of Iowa or any other institution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members of the Committee, thank you 
for asking me to appear before you. I offer the following context and 
suggestions to encourage tribal co-management of federal public lands, 
using existing legislative authority.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ A more comprehensive assessment of the ideas discussed herein 
will be published in the Wisconsin Law Review, in an article entitled 
Facilitating Tribal Co-Management of Federal Public Lands (forthcoming 
2002), A draft of the article is currently available here: http://
ssrn.com/abstract=3951290.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              Introduction

    One of the most significant long-standing injustices in the history 
of the United States is the theft of land from Indian tribes during the 
better part of the first two centuries of this nation's existence. The 
taking of native land reflects a wide gulf between our idealistic 
claims to be a just nation and the truth buried in our nation's 
history. Our nation is far from perfect. Since 1787, however, this 
country has been working steadily, more or less, to achieve our highest 
ideals and to become a ``more perfect union.'' It is in this spirit of 
idealism that I appear before you today.
    All of North America was once occupied by Native American tribal 
nations. Today, the vast majority of federal public land is located in 
the western United States, and tens of millions of acres of this land 
can be traced to specific land cessions from tribes pursuant to Senate-
ratified treaties, or Presidential executive orders, that were later 
violated.
    Tribes have consistently sought the return of their lands from the 
Federal Government. Tribal nations in South Dakota, for example, 
regularly renew their request for the return of the Black Hills. An 
outspoken Ojibwe scholar, David Treuer, has boldly called on the United 
States to return the national parks to tribes, saying ``there can be no 
better remedy for the theft of land than land'' and ``no lands are as 
spiritually significant as the national parks.'' Demands by the 
``LandBack'' movement have met with some success, as Congress recently 
returned a significant Fish and Wildlife Service refuge, the National 
Bison Range, to the Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribe in Montana. As 
our country continues to reckon with historical injustices and seeks to 
develop allies in much-needed conservation efforts, more action is 
appropriate.

    The Need for Tribal Management or Co-Management of Public Lands

    While returning federal lands to tribes presents significant 
complexities, a wide range of actions can meet some of the same goals. 
Today, I wish to discuss tribal co-management of federal public lands 
as a meaningful and constructive way to acknowledge and recognize past 
injustices and also broaden the federal commitment to conservation and 
strong stewardship of public land.
    Tribes have a lot to offer in land conservation and management, 
including traditional ecological knowledge and thoughtful practices 
regarding resource management that have been passed down through 
generations. Tribal land managers perform better, in some ways, than 
expert federal managers. Bold federal conservation goals need broad 
support and tribes can be important allies to the Federal Government 
and our international partners in this effort.

   Views on the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistant Act

    Broad opportunities for tribal co-management are already authorized 
by federal laws on tribal self-determination and self-governance. In 
1975 Congress enacted Public Law 93-638, the Indian Self-Determination 
and Education Assistance Act (``ISDA''), which allowed tribes to 
contract with certain federal agencies to administer federal programs 
that provide services to Indian people because of their status as 
Indians. Under such contracts--commonly called ``638 contracts''--
tribal governments step into the shoes of the Federal Government in 
providing federal services. The vast majority of these contracts are 
between tribal governments or tribal consortia, on one side, and the 
Indian Health Service (``IHS'') and the Bureau of Indian Affairs 
(``BIA'') on the other. The self-determination laws have transformed 
federal services in Indian Country. The contracting scheme has 
simultaneously enhanced tribal sovereignty and self-determination and 
improved the quality of federal services to Indian people. It has also 
had the practical effect of building substantial tribal capacity in a 
field of some complexity: contracting with the Federal Government.

    In 1994, Congress expanded tribal ISDA contracting authority, 
allowing tribal governments to contract with Interior agencies, such as 
the Fish & Wildlife Service (``FWS''), the Bureau of Land Management 
(``BLM'') and the National Park Service (``NPS''). These 1994 
amendments authorized tribes to contract for virtually any federal 
program, service or function at the Departments of Interior or Health 
and Human Services as long as it has a ``special geographic, 
historical, or cultural significance'' to a tribe that is successfully 
involved in the ISDA self-governance program. Similar authority was 
eventually extended to the Department of Agriculture, home to the U.S. 
Forest Service (``USFS'').

    To tribes, expanding the contracting regime beyond traditional 
tribal self-governance programs held great promise. Opportunities would 
seem to abound for partnerships between tribes and federal land 
management agencies. However, the strong potential for tribal co-
management in the 1994 amendments has yet to be realized.

    Indeed, in contrast to the BIA and IHS, tribes have had very little 
success in contracting with the federal land management services. 
Compared to more than 800 annual contracts with the BIA in recent 
years, tribes have entered fewer than a dozen contracts annually with 
all of the other land management agencies within Interior combined, 
including the BLM, FWS and NPS. Based on the numbers alone, it is fair 
to conclude that the Congressional initiative to encourage federal-
tribal contracts related to public land management has failed.

    To address this failure, I respectfully present several 
recommendations to incentivize contracts between tribes and federal 
land management agencies and to facilitate participation by tribes in 
meeting ambitious federal conservation objectives. Some of the 
suggestions are directed toward the agencies and some are directed 
toward Congress.

Interior Agencies Should Expand the List of Federal Programs, Services 
        and Activities That Are Subject to Potential Contracting

    The Department of the Interior is required by law to publish each 
year a list identify existing contracts and detailing the list of 
programs that are eligible for contracting. Since 1994, tribal 
governments have become more and more successful in running federal 
programs and tribal governmental capacity and expertise has expanded. 
However, Interior's annual list of eligible programs, services and 
activities has changed very little in more than 20 years since the list 
was first published in the Federal Register.
    To its credit, Interior has not ignored the program. Interior has 
occasionally held tribal consultations on the program and the list has 
not been entirely static. In light of the ``LandBack'' movement and 
heightened interest among tribal governments and conservation 
organizations in engaging tribes in land conservation, this program 
should be made a Departmental priority. The Department should consult 
with tribes with a view toward expanding the lists of functions for 
which tribes can contract. The following activities have been included, 
but some of these could be expanded:

Eligible Bureau of Land Management programs (among others):

     Minerals management and cadastral surveys

     Cultural heritage activities

     Natural resource management, such as timber management and 
            watershed restoration

     Range management, such as revegetation, noxious weed 
            control, and wild horse management

     Riparian management, such as erosion control

     Recreation management, such as facilities construction and 
            maintenance

     Habitat management

Eligible National Park Service programs (among others):

     Archaeological surveys

     Comprehensive management planning

     Ethnographic studies

     Erosion control

     Fire protection

     Gathering subsistence data

     Hazardous Fuel Reduction

     Housing Construction and Rehabilitation

     Interpretation

     Janitorial Services

     Maintenance

     Natural Resource Management

     Campground Operation

     Range Assessment

     Reindeer Grazing in Alaska

     Road Repair

     Solid Waste Collection and Disposal

     Trail Rehabilitation

     Watershed Restoration and

     Maintenance

     Recycling Programs

Eligible Fish and Wildlife Service programs (among others):

     Subsistence programs within Alaska

     Technical assistance, restoration, and conservation

     Endangered species conservation and recovery programs

     Wetland and habitat conservation restoration

     Fish hatchery operations

    Each Interior agency should be directed to go through the list of 
activities anew and take a fresh look, in consultation with tribes.

 Interior Agencies Should Also Expand the List of Federal Facilities, 
       Lands, and Units That Are Subject to Potential Contracting

    In the same document in which Interior annually publishes notice of 
the list of eligible programs, services and activities for which tribes 
can contract, it also publishes the names of the lands or units that 
lie in proximity to an eligible tribal government exercising self-
governance. Similar to the eligible program and services lists, these 
lists have also remained relatively static during the past 20 years.
    To provide examples, the NPS lists 15 park units in Alaska and 
eight in Arizona, and even one in my current home state of Iowa--Effigy 
Mounds National Monument. It lists six iconic units in New Mexico, 
including Aztec Ruins National Monument, Bandelier National Monument, 
Carlsbad Caverns National Park, Chaco Culture National Historic Park, 
Pecos National Historic Park and White Sands National Monument.
    However, some newer public land units, which would seem to be 
appropriate for inclusion, are omitted from the list. For example, the 
Bears Ears National Monument in Southeastern Utah was not included, 
despite significant tribal interest in assisting the BLM in managing 
this tribally significant landscape. The list contains no units in 
Wisconsin, despite press reports that suggest that the Red Cliff Band 
of Lake Superior Chippewa has been in talks with the NPS regarding the 
Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, which is adjacent to the Red Cliff 
and Bad River Indian Reservations.
    Agencies should schedule tribal consultations, perhaps on a 
regional basis, on the scope of the list of public land units, and 
actively seek out tribal interest in engagement with particular units. 
I am quite confident that such a review would result in the addition of 
more parks, monuments, and refuges to the list. Ultimately, agencies 
should be encouraged to expand the list by identifying additional units 
and additional functions.

  Congress Should Authorize Modest Funding for Tribal Planning Grants

 and Contract Support Costs to Assist Tribes with Successful Proposals 
                     for Land Management Contracts

    Two structural impediments exist to successful tribal contracts for 
public land management, at least in comparison to the original program 
for contracts for ``Indian services.'' First, contracting is mandatory 
for the BIA or IHS when requested by a tribe, while it is only 
discretionary for the land management agencies. Tribes have long sought 
to make contracting mandatory even outside the BIA and IHS. I recommend 
no change here, at this time, but I do believe that Interior should 
embrace contracting opportunities much more seriously.
    Second, when a tribe enters a contract with either the BIA or the 
IHS, the ISDA requires the agency to provide the contracting tribe with 
funds equivalent to those that the Secretary ``would have otherwise 
provided for his direct operation of the programs.'' The costs are 
known as ``contract support costs'' and they have been the subject of 
significant stress and litigation. The theory for them is this: in the 
normal operation of a federal program, an agency has other expenditures 
involved in running the program that may not implicate specific program 
funds. For example, the Federal Government may have costs associated 
with hiring personnel or with providing employee benefits that would 
ordinarily be borne by the Federal Government but may not be allocated 
directly from program funds. To account for such expenses, the ISDA 
entitles tribes to an additional percentage of program funds, which 
varies by tribe and location, to account for other costs that the 
Federal Government would have borne in providing the same services. 
These funds are akin to ``indirect costs,'' or ``facility and 
administrative costs'' allocated in university research grants, for 
example.
    After decades of litigation, the Supreme Court ultimately held in 
Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter, 567 U.S. 182 (2012), that the law 
requires the Federal Government to pay such costs even if Congress has 
not appropriated adequate funding. As a result, tribes can now count on 
this funding in Indian services contracts. However, these costs are 
significant, often reaching from ten to fifty percent or more of the 
principal amount of the contract. Because contracts with other DOI 
agencies or the USFS do not address contract support costs, contracts 
with other agencies are less lucrative and more burdensome on tribes 
than contracts with the BIA or IHS. Because contract support costs 
represent the ordinary and routine costs of operating program, every 
government must bear them. For a tribe contracting with a non-BIA or 
IHS federal agency, the tribe must meet those expenses in other ways. 
Because contracts with land management agencies are, in this way, more 
costly to the tribe than Indian services contracts, contracts with 
these agencies are less attractive and more burdensome to tribes.
    Congress should consider awarding contract support costs, at least 
in some limited fashion in this context, just as it does in the Indian 
services context. From the perspective of tribes, the Federal 
Government saves some administrative resources when a tribe takes over 
functions. It makes sense to offer some, at least modest, recognition 
of these savings. If this proposed reform is untenable, a more modest 
reform that might make a difference is authorizing and appropriating 
modest planning grants to allow interested tribal governments to 
explore options and make a sophisticated judgment about the costs of 
running a federal program.

  Interior Should Encourage Federal Managers to Negotiate with Tribes

     by Rewarding Superintendents and Regional Directors Who Enter

   Negotiations for Contracts with Tribes and Recognizing Those Who 
                      Successfully Enter Contracts

    Aside from financial barriers tribes may face in seeking contracts 
with federal land management agencies, tribes face additional obstacles 
related to agency culture, tribal expectations, and even the political 
dynamics at the agency and within interest groups and Congress. For a 
variety of reasons, federal officials may be unwilling to engage in 
serious discussions about such contracts. Because tribes have 
significant experience managing lands and resources, however, tribes 
have a lot to offer.
    Federal opposition to contracting may be rooted in ignorance about 
tribal success in running federal Indian programs. As Cherokee 
philosopher Will Rogers once noted, ``we are all ignorant, just about 
different things.'' A BLM state director, park superintendent, or FWS 
regional director may simply not understand the sophisticated programs 
being run by tribes in some of the same subject matter areas as the 
public land management agencies. Park superintendents are accustomed to 
giving tours of the iconic public lands they proudly manage. Perhaps 
these superintendents and other federal managers should also be taking 
tours of the tribal lands managed by neighboring tribes.
    Starting with modest contracts may create an opportunity to build 
trust and develop a shared understanding of missions and goals. One 
example of low-hanging fruit is so called ``interpretive services.'' 
Nearly every national park unit has employees who are charged with 
explaining the significance of the park unit. Tribal employees may have 
unique value in helping members of the public understand the cultural, 
historical, and scientific significance of particular lands.
    New partnerships are not easy. From the federal side, a partnership 
involves compromise and the willingness to give up some level of 
control. Federal officials who have the vision to begin such 
conversations and successfully develop new ways of approaching the 
management of public lands should be rewarded.

 Congress Should Align the Criteria for Tribal Contracts for USFS Land 
    Management Agreements with the Criteria for Interior Agreements

    For the programs in the Department of the Interior, Title 25, 
Section 5363(c) of the U.S. Code allows a tribe to contract for federal 
activities or programs that have a ``special geographic, historical or 
cultural significance'' to the tribe. Since virtually all public lands 
in the United States were once occupied by one or more tribal nations, 
the limitation in this language is not particularly significant. For 
almost every public land unit in the western United States and many in 
the East, it is likely that there is a tribe that qualifies. To the 
extent that this language is limiting, it should be understood to help 
the agency determine which tribe should be engaged as to which service 
unit.
    In contrast, the authorization for tribal contracting with USFS is 
more limited. In 2004, Congress expanded contracting to the USFS, 
located within the Department of Agriculture, through the Tribal Forest 
Protection Act (``TFPA''). The 2004 amendment was passed largely in 
response to a bad fire season in which tribes were impacted by the 
failure of federal officials to prevent a forest fire from migrating 
from USFS land to a tribal forest. In 2018, Congress again expanded 
USFS contracting authority in the Agricultural Improvement Act (the 
2018 Farm Bill), which granted USFS the authority to enter ISDA 
agreements with tribes to undertake TFPA-specific projects and work. In 
part because of this context, this law has more restrictive language 
than in the DOI authorization.
    Under the TFPA, tribes are restricted to contracting only for 
projects on federal lands ``bordering or adjacent to the Indian forest 
or rangeland.'' I would respectfully suggest that this language is 
unduly narrow and restricts tribal nations with significant connections 
to the land, including some tribal nations that are located near public 
lands, though not formally adjacent. It would make sense to expand the 
TFPA authorization to match the broader language in section 5363(c). 
Since contracting is not mandatory for USFS, and the agency retains 
discretion as to whether to enter such a contract, it is hard to see a 
downside to broadening the authorization.

     Agencies Should Lengthen Contractual Terms to Develop Longer 
                              Partnerships

    Some agencies have begun to execute two-year or more agreements, 
and this extension is a positive development. Two-year agreements make 
sense because they reflect the limit of federal budget authority (for 
many agencies, money appropriated in one year generally can be used 
that year and carried over to the following fiscal year). For mature 
relationships between tribes and agencies, agencies should be 
encouraged to enter long-term arrangements, such as five-year 
contracts, which have automatic adjustments if fiscal conditions 
change.
    While longer contracts would assist with certainty and continuity, 
such a contract need not be a straitjacket. For example, if federal 
appropriations for the specific facility decrease, the tribe's contract 
could be cut by a proportional amount. Moreover, tribes generally have 
the authority under the law to retrocede a function or program back to 
the Federal Government, and likewise, an agency has the authority to 
reassume a program if the tribe is failing to meet its contractual 
obligations.

                               Conclusion

    Each year, Native American tribal nations enter hundreds of federal 
contracts worth billions of dollars to run federal Indian programs. 
These ``self-determination contracts'' have been enormously successful 
in improving the effective delivery of federal programs on Indian 
reservations, while also maintaining the government's goal of 
encouraging tribal participation in economic development. When tribes 
manage public land, they bring a long-standing and deep commitment to 
land stewardship. They also have strong human capital to bring to bear, 
including traditional ecological knowledge that has developed over 
centuries.
    Tribal governments wish to use their resources and expertise more. 
At a time when all nations must work together to address the effects of 
climate change, federal co-management with tribal nations can bring to 
bear new tools, new expertise, and new players to bear on the federal 
conservation agenda. A modest and attainable way to begin the expansion 
of tribal co-management is by using the mechanisms already 
congressionally authorized. This can lead to a strong potential of 
developing more contracts and relationships, breathing new life into 
the tribal contracting programs on public lands.
    Thank you for inviting my views.

                                 ______
                                 

    The Chairman. Thank you very much, Dean. The Chair now 
wishes to recognize Mr. Cody Desautel, President of the 
Intertribal Timber Council.
    Sir, you are recognized.

   STATEMENT OF CODY DESAUTEL, PRESIDENT, INTERTRIBAL TIMBER 
                   COUNCIL, PORTLAND, OREGON

    Mr. Desautel. Thank you, Chair Grijalva and Ranking Member 
Moore. I am Cody Desautel, I am the President of the 
Intertribal Timber Council and Natural Resource Director for 
the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation in 
Washington State. On behalf of the ITC and its more than 60 
member tribes and organizations across the country, I 
appreciate the opportunity to discuss how tribes are well 
situated to help co-manage Federal forest lands.
    A total of 334 reservations in 36 states includes 18.6 
million acres of forests and woodlands held in trust by the 
United States and managed for the benefit of Indians. Pursuant 
to both tribal direction and Federal law, our forests must be 
sustainably managed.
    Tribes operate modern, innovative, and comprehensive 
natural resource programs premised on connectedness to the 
land, resources, and people. Our approach is holistic, 
sustaining a triple bottom line of economic, ecological, and 
cultural values. We care for the land through active management 
and do our utmost to aggressively treat problems proactively 
before they reach disastrous proportions, fueling wildfires.
    Even with limited budgets, tribes have demonstrated more 
effective forest management than Federal agencies. ITC believes 
we also have a stronger balance between resource protection and 
producing economic outputs that support our local communities.
    In addition to having more fire-resilient forests, tribes 
also respond to fires more effectively. The average size of 
fires on BIA-managed lands is three times smaller than on 
Forest Service. Suppression costs on a per-acre basis are five 
times lower on BIA-managed lands.
    Indian tribes are neighbors to Federal forests and many 
tribes retain and exercise treaty and reserved rights. 
Unhealthy Federal forests impact tribes' ability to practice 
those reserved rights and, in some cases, those impacts 
overflow onto our reservations. Even with effective treatments 
to our own lands, severe wildfires from adjacent Federal lands 
inflict significant damage and economic cost to tribal forests.
    In the last two decades, tribes have increased their co-
management activities on Federal forest lands, utilizing tools 
authorized by Congress. The Tribal Forest Protection Act 
authorizes the Forest Service and BLM to enter into agreements 
with tribes for forest health projects on U.S. Forest Service 
and BLM lands that pose fire, forest health, or other threats 
to adjacent tribal trust forests.
    In 2018, the Farm Bill expanded 638 self-determination 
contracting authority to USDA for TFPA projects. This provided 
a funding mechanism to allow tribal participation to ensure 
tribal goals and objectives are included. The ITC and Forest 
Service have been working collaboratively to implement this 
provision on the ground.
    The 2018 Farm Bill also authorized tribes to enter into 
cross-boundary forest health projects using the Good Neighbor 
Authority. However, the Farm Bill language failed to give 
tribes the ability to retain project revenues needed to build 
restoration program capacity internally. Legislation has been 
introduced in the House to remedy this situation, which the ITC 
supports.
    The Department of the Interior's Reserved Treaty Rights 
Lands program enables tribes to participate in collaborative 
projects with off-reservation, non-tribal landowners to enhance 
the health and resiliency of priority tribal natural resources 
at high risk to wildland fire. This addresses areas where 
Federal agencies may not share tribal priorities, or may agree 
but do not have the funds available to manage for them.
    A major barrier to tribal co-management activities is 
capacity. Management of tribal trust forests are funded at a 
fraction of the equivalent Federal forests: $.30 on the dollar, 
compared to the Forest Service. In addition to the funding 
received from the BIA, it is restricted to management of tribal 
trust land. It is difficult for most tribes to justify using 
tribal funds on co-management initiatives off reservation, when 
the tribal needs are so great at home. Tribes have been 
deprived of tools like GNA receipt retention, which could be 
used to build programs as states have successfully done for 
many years.
    The ITC recommends the following steps to increase tribal 
co-management opportunities on Federal forest lands: provide 
parity and project revenue spending authority to tribes 
interested in Good Neighbor Authority projects; authorize 
Federal hazardous fuels dollars to be used to build tribal 
capacity for development of cross-boundary projects; authorize 
the tribes to initiate Cooperative Forest Landscape Restoration 
projects where TFPA and GNA may not be an appropriate tool; and 
statutorily require the National Forests and BLM adequately 
contemplate tribal interests in forest planning and processes 
under NEPA.
    The ITC stands ready to work with the Committee and the 
Administration on enhancing tribal participation in the 
management of Federal forests. The ITC has and will continue to 
support legislation from both parties that increase the roles 
and responsibilities of Indian tribes and the management of 
Federal forests for the good of all.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Desautel follows:]
  Prepared Statement of Cody Desautel, President, Intertribal Timber 
                                Council
    I am Cody Desautel, President of the Intertribal Timber Council 
(ITC) and Natural Resources Director for the Confederated Tribes of the 
Colville Reservation in Washington State. On the behalf of the ITC and 
its more than 60 member Tribes and organizations across the country, I 
appreciate the opportunity to discuss how tribes are well situated to 
help co-manage federal forestlands.
    Tribes are first stewards of the land, air, water, earth, and all 
things that walk, fly, swim, or grow roots. Tribal wisdom and practices 
are needed more than ever. Tribal participation in the management of 
public and all lands should be embraced to heal and protect the 
resources we share.
    Tribes are the experts when it comes to local conditions, 
resources, and socio-economic forces. Their cultures, economies, 
religions, identities, foods, and medicines are grounded in a profound 
covenant of stewardship of the environment connecting the past, 
present, and future.
    On a total of 334 reservations in 36 states, 18.6 million acres of 
forests and woodlands are held in trust by the United States and 
managed for the benefit of Indians. Pursuant to both tribal direction 
and federal law, our forests must be sustainably managed. Indian Tribes 
work in partnership with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and others to 
care for the land.
    Tribes operate modern, innovative and comprehensive natural 
resource programs premised on connectedness to the land, resources, and 
people. Our approach is holistic--sustaining a ``triple bottom line'' 
of economic, ecological, and cultural values. We care for the land 
through active management and do our utmost to aggressively treat 
problems such as insect or disease infestations, and fuels before they 
can reach disastrous proportions fueling wildfires that have plagued 
the west.
    Even with limited budgets, tribes have demonstrated more 
effectiveness in forest management than federal agencies. I believe we 
have a stronger balance between resource protection and producing 
economic outputs. Our forests are more resilient to fire, Tribes also 
respond to fires more effectively. The average size of a fire on BIA-
managed lands is three times smaller than on Forest Service land. 
Suppression costs, on a per-acre basis, are five times lower on fires 
on BIA lands.
    All public lands are carved from historically Indian lands. Indian 
tribes are neighbors to federal forests and many tribes retain and 
exercise treaty and reserved rights on these lands to hunt and fish, 
gather foods and medicines, and for other cultural purposes that define 
them as a people. Unhealthy forests impact Tribes' ability to practice 
those activities on federal lands, and in some cases those impacts 
overflow onto our reservations. Even with effective treatments to our 
own lands, severe wildfires from adjacent federal lands inflict 
significant damage and economic costs to tribal forests.

    In the last two decades, tribes have stepped up their co-management 
activities on federal forestlands utilizing the tools authorized by 
Congress:

     TFPA: The Tribal Forest Protection Act (P.L. 108-278 
            [2004]) authorizes the U.S. Forest Service and BLM to enter 
            agreements with tribes for forest health projects on USFS 
            and BLM lands that pose fire, health or other threats to 
            adjacent tribal trust forests.

          o  `` 638 authority'': Additional authority provided in the 
        2018 Farm Bill allows the Forest Service to enter into 638 
        self-determination contracts with tribes for TFPA projects 
        which provides a funding mechanism to allow tribal 
        participation to ensure tribal goals and objectives are 
        included in implementation of those projects. The ITC and the 
        Forest Service have been working collaboratively to implement 
        this provision on the ground.

     Good Neighbor Authority: The 2018 Farm Bill authorized 
            tribes to enter into cross boundary forest health projects 
            using this authority with DOI and the Forest Service, but 
            failed to give tribes the ability to retain project 
            revenues to build restoration programs. Legislation has 
            been introduced in the House to remedy this situation and 
            the ITC would recommend it be addressed in the next Farm 
            Bill.

     Reserved Treaty Rights Lands: Many Tribes possess reserved 
            rights in off-reservation areas under the management of 
            other federal agencies. In some cases Tribes share co-
            management rights with federal agencies. Federal agencies 
            may not share the same priorities for landscape restoration 
            as tribes or, may agree with Tribal priorities but not have 
            the funds to manage for Tribal priorities. The Department 
            of the Interior's Reserved Treaty Right Lands (RTRL) 
            program enables Tribes to participate in collaborative 
            projects with non-Tribal landowners to enhance the health 
            and resiliency of priority tribal natural resources at high 
            risk to wildland fire.

    The ITC has and will continue to support legislation from both 
parties that increase the roles and responsibilities of Indian tribes 
in the management of federal forests. The value of co-management 
projects accrues to all Americans, not just tribal members.
    A major barrier to tribal co-management activities is capacity. 
Management of tribal trust forests are funded at a fraction of 
equivalent federal forests--thirty cents on the dollar. In addition the 
funding received from the BIA is restricted to management of tribal 
trust land. It is difficult for most tribes to self-finance co-
management initiatives.
    Tribes have been deprived of tools like receipt retention in GNA 
projects that could be used to build programs as states have 
successfully done for many years.

    The ITC recommends the following steps to increase tribal co-
management opportunities on federal forestlands:

     Provide parity in project revenue spending authority to 
            tribes interested in Good Neighbor Authority projects;

     Authorize federal hazardous fuels dollars to be used to 
            build tribal capacity for development of cross-boundary 
            projects;

     Authorize funding for tribes to initiate Cooperative 
            Forest Landscape Restoration projects where TFPA/GNA may 
            not be an appropriate tool;

     Statutorily require that National Forests and BLM units 
            adequately contemplate tribal interests in forest planning 
            processes under NEPA

    The ITC stands ready to work with the Committee and the 
Administration on enhancing tribal participation in the management of 
federal forests.

                                 ______
                                 

    The Chairman. Let me now recognize the Ranking Member for 
any questions or comments he might have.
    Mr. Moore, you are recognized.
    Mr. Moore. Thank you, Chairman. I do have several questions 
I will direct to Mr. Desautel, but I first just want to comment 
on kind of what we have seen discussed today, and I get it, 
right? Those of us in the Minority, the Republican side of the 
aisle, we want to talk about energy production, and we want to 
talk about energy independence for, particularly, what is going 
on in the world. And there is frustration from the Majority 
side, saying that is not what today's hearings are about.
    I had a town hall last night, a telephone town hall with my 
constituents in Utah. We had 71 questions submitted. Sixty-five 
of these questions were about energy independence and the 
Russia-Ukraine conflict and how the two are intertwined. So, 
when we constantly bring up this topic, this is what our 
constituents are talking about. We represent them. This is the 
Committee of jurisdiction over one of the most important 
things, and we should look at that as an opportunity, in my 
opinion.
    I serve on Armed Services and Natural Resources, 
particularly as the Ranking Member on Oversight and 
Investigation. And candidly, I am excited about that, because I 
feel like there is an opportunity to do something. I mean, what 
is more relevant right now than Armed Services and Natural 
Resources and what our nation can do to address this?
    So, it is not an insincere sort of political ploy. I want 
to re-emphasize one thing that my friend from Louisiana, Garret 
Graves, said. We are in a bind now because we can't prepare for 
this. We are going to cut off oil energy, or we are going to 
cut off energy from Russia, and we can't backfill it. And now 
we have to go to other dictators. That is the most 
irresponsible thing that we can do as lawmakers.
    I emphasize the point--85 to 90 percent of the questions 
that I had last night are directly related to this Committee of 
jurisdiction.
    And, thankfully, I have been able to highlight to my 
constituents that I have been speaking out against the 
Secretarial Order, the Keystone Pipeline, since last February, 
13 months ago. That is good for me politically, but I am not 
looking for a political win. I am sincerely looking for a win 
for our nation and for our allies. That is what I truly care 
about, and I know that is what all of us actually do care 
about.
    So, that is where it is coming from. It is not coming from 
cheap politics, I promise you.
    And I am going to take this opportunity, Mr. Desautel, to 
just highlight. Given the instability that we are witnessing in 
Eastern Europe, can you talk to us about the importance for us 
to look at domestic energy production from our tribes and even 
other communities? And what benefits would you see from that?
    I look at it as an opportunity to avoid the Ayatollah, 
avoid Venezuela, and look at what we have here, and do it 
better and cleaner. And if we invest in ourselves, we can go 
find more renewable opportunities. Any thoughts there, sir?
    Mr. Desautel. Yes, thanks for the question. We don't have 
much experience with that, as an Intertribal Timber Council, 
but we have put significant effort into looking at renewable 
fuels, primarily biomass. And we know that, through a number of 
studies through universities across the country, that that is 
primarily limited by economics, that it is not financially 
feasible to remove those products from the forests and make a 
profit, so you don't see it utilized on the ground.
    Now, I think we have had a lot of conversations about a 
cost model, recognizing what wildfires cost us on an annual 
basis, and how we can do work on the landscape in the near term 
to remove those fuels, even if it is at a minor cost. The 
benefits that we see in the long term, I think, hold huge 
potential.
    And most tribal governments exist in rural communities, so 
any time there is an opportunity to generate an economy, that 
is helpful for the local tribes.
    Mr. Moore. Let me put some numbers to it, actually. What I 
have here is that the United States imported over $450 million 
worth of wood products from Russia. Wood products exports are a 
$12 billion economy for Vladimir Putin.
    So, similar to the conversations if we talk energy, do you 
think there is an opportunity here to source our lumber from 
countries, leveraging our Federal and tribal lands to produce 
more timber?
    Mr. Desautel. Absolutely. That is primarily a limitation of 
funding for the BIA, that if you look at what the annual level 
harvest is for tribes across the country, we are only utilizing 
about half of that on any given year. So, there is a 
significant amount of wood that would benefit both tribal and 
local economies if we had the funding to ensure that those 
forest products made it to market.
    Mr. Moore. Thank you. I appreciate you being here and the 
chance to talk about this.
    I hope my comments are understood in the intent that they 
are, that is to be productive and to leverage this Committee to 
the best possible use of taxpayer resources. Thank you, 
Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much. And in any discussion 
going forward on the issue of energy independence, self-
reliance, both as a domestic policy and a foreign policy, yes, 
to that conversation. I think my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle--and I appreciate your comments, Mr. Moore--have 
to understand that those conversations need to be factual, OK, 
and second of all, that those conversations are not one-sided, 
that Members on my side of the aisle in the Majority have ideas 
on that pathway to energy independence just as some Members on 
your side have ideas to reinstate former policies as the only 
means to acquire energy independence. I think that discussion 
is going to be important--it is important.
    But I hope there is some acknowledgment that there is not 
just one path to this, and that--whether it is the McMorris-
Westerman piece of legislation that is counterproductive to 
everything this Committee has been doing, if that is the 
template that you are using, yes, then it is worth a debate, 
because there are some serious questions about the 
effectiveness of that.
    But we will get at it some other meeting. I want to 
concentrate on this. Let me now recognize Chair Leger Fernandez 
from New Mexico. You are recognized.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you, Chair Grijalva, and thank 
you to the witnesses and this whole discussion that we are 
having about the topic in terms of the roles and the importance 
of tribes actually participating and managing their own lands, 
which are also their aboriginal lands, which are also, in many 
cases, their sacred lands.
    I worked for many years, had the honor of working with Taos 
Pueblo, and we all know the history, that Taos Pueblo was one 
of the very first tribes that was able to have returned to it 
Blue Lake over 50 years ago. And it was such a celebration for 
them to receive back to them that incredibly sacred piece of 
land, which meant something to them that none of the rest of us 
can understand, other than it is their sacredness, it is their 
stories, it is their history, and they are, therefore, the 
perfect people to protect it.
    But what I also know is that there was supposed to be an 
agreement for the wilderness surrounding it and funding for the 
tribe to be able to exercise that protection because it does 
cost money, right? And protecting a wilderness area requires 
the investment of resources, and they have been frustrated time 
and time again about the fact that the allocation of resources 
hasn't come through.
    And that brings me to your testimony, Mr. Washburn, and how 
nice to see you again. I love the fact that we have all of 
these New Mexico connections on this hearing today. But you had 
some good recommendations for tribal co-management, and one of 
them involved the issue of costs, right, and how important it 
is for tribes to be able to collect contract support costs and 
indirect costs when they execute a 638 contract.
    We know that happens with the BIA or IHS. It makes it 
possible for tribes to actually be able to afford to run that 
program. But tell us a little bit more about what a better 
estimate of those indirect costs might be, in the context of 
co-management of lands, and why the failure to do that is such 
a barrier for tribes.
    Mr. Washburn. Thank you for the wonderful question. The 
challenge here is tribes, they have limited resources. Many of 
them have limited resources. I will say there are some tribes 
that will do co-management, even without contract support costs 
and without additional costs.
    But the fact is, when the United States contracts with 
others to do work--like universities, for example, for 
research--it often recognizes that by giving them additional 
sums to help them pay for IT, information technology, and human 
resources, and those sorts of things. And tribes can be more 
successful if they get the same kinds of resources.
    And when they do this, it saves the Federal Government 
money. Indeed, in some cases--and you heard some of it here 
from one of our witnesses--but tribes can be even more 
efficient than the Federal Government in providing these 
services. So, that means the taxpayer may be getting more for 
its money if it contracts with tribes for some of these 
services.
    In part, that is because tribes don't necessarily follow 
the general Federal pay scale. They don't necessarily have the 
same kinds of benefits that the Federal Government has and that 
sort of thing. So, they are a little more flexible, I think, 
than the Federal Government.
    In sum, tribes can do this sometimes cheaper, but they do 
need support. They need some of those administrative costs 
provided.
    So, thank you for the wonderful question.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. And it really just makes sense, right? 
If the Federal Government would be doing it, they are paying 
somebody due to the IT, they are paying somebody to answer the 
phones. All of those are simply the costs of doing the 
business, right?
    And then there is this other piece that is really key, in 
terms of the manner in which tribes will hire their own members 
to do this work, and the economic impact on the tribe itself, 
and how they are able to grow their capacity so that--going 
back to Taos Pueblo, they have an amazing natural resources 
department that is available to do that, that is constrained by 
costs. But their natural resources department is working on 
making sure that they are able to do some of the game hunts and 
bring in additional resources.
    So, can you maybe touch base on the fact that there is a--
well, actually, I am out of time--that there is actually this 
multiplier effect that happens when we are basically investing 
in tribal infrastructure, and getting the benefits of that deep 
knowledge of the land that somebody coming from outside would 
never have, is that correct?
    Mr. Washburn. That is correct. Thank you.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you. The gentlelady yields. Continuing 
a markedly New Mexico vibe in this meeting, the gentlelady from 
New Mexico, Representative Herrell, you are recognized.
    Ms. Herrell. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is New Mexico Day in 
Washington. I just really appreciate this hearing.
    And I have the privilege of representing the Mescalero 
Apache Tribe and other pueblos in the district that I 
represent. Last year, I actually took Ranking Member Westerman 
down to Ruidoso, down to visit the Mescalero Apache Tribe, so 
that he could really understand the difference in terms of 
forest management done on the tribal land versus on public 
land. And I kind of want to ask the same question my colleague 
was just asking, but kind of flip it a little bit, and I wanted 
to ask this to Mr. Desautel.
    In your testimony, you list out several proposals that 
Congress should be considering to empower tribes to better 
manage forests on their reservations. And in our area, they do 
already. The tribes and pueblos do a much better job. So, to 
flip it, what do you think that Federal managers should be 
doing, and what do you think they can learn from tribal land 
managers when it comes to preventing catastrophic wildfires and 
managing public lands?
    Mr. Desautel. Thank you for the question. The Intertribal 
Timber Council has hosted a number of different workshops to 
try to leverage the authorities that tribes have currently that 
have been granted by Congress, primarily over the last couple 
of decades. And TFPA has been the most successful of those so 
far.
    But, I think, when we develop those projects, tribes have 
tried to, one, utilize them along their border, so you see what 
tribal management looks like on one side of the fence versus 
the Forest Service side, and then create a similar condition on 
the other side, where you have resilience, you have those 
tribal priorities included in project development and 
implementation.
    So, in addition to that, you get the economic benefits, the 
ecosystem function benefits of having ecosystems that have been 
actively managed with a resilience and a climate change 
perspective in mind.
    And I think tribes carry that throughout the nation. That 
isn't something that is specific to the Southwest, but they do 
a great job down there.
    Ms. Herrell. They really do. I mean, you are exactly right. 
You can literally look at the fencing and look at one side of 
the fence versus the other and see a stark difference.
    And just quick, because I know we are almost out of time, I 
am curious. Can you give the Committee any examples, or are you 
familiar with any of the steps that the tribal members and 
tribes are taking to address watershed health and water supply 
issues?
    I mean, especially in these rural communities throughout 
the Southwest, where we are just riddled with drought 
conditions, I am just curious if there is something that you 
are familiar with that they might be working on, in terms of 
watershed stability in their forest management process.
    Mr. Desautel. I don't know of any specific projects, but I 
know in general their management approach looks at what a 
resilient ecosystem is and the benefits that come from that. 
So, we have clean water with good quantity, we have clean air, 
and all of the habitat and cultural resource needs that the 
tribes have.
    So, their guiding principles in management are focused on 
that. Although I don't know specific examples, I think there 
are probably plenty of them across the West, where tribes 
recognize the benefit of those upper watersheds and why it is 
important to maintain those and not necessarily where the point 
of withdrawal is.
    Ms. Herrell. Yes, and I just think the limited number of 
trees per acre would certainly have a huge impact on watershed, 
downstream users, water availability. And hats off to how well, 
especially Mescalero Apache and others, have managed their 
properties and their land. It is amazing.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I turn back the New Mexico portion 
of your hearing to you.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Representative. I happen to be 
fortunate, and my spouse is from northern New Mexico. She is 
born and bred, and we have been together quite a while. And I 
have learned that sometimes you just roll with the punches. 
There is not much you can do when it comes to New Mexico.
    Anyway, Chairman Lowenthal, you are recognized for any 
comments or questions you may have, sir. Thank you.
    [Pause.]
    The Chairman. If not, let me move down to Representative 
Garcia, if you are----
    Dr. Lowenthal. No, I am here. I am here, Chairman Grijalva.
    The Chairman. Excuse me, Mr. Lowenthal. You are recognized, 
Chairman.
    Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chair. First, I want to thank 
you and the Ranking Member for holding this hearing on the 
development of tribal co-management on Federal lands.
    And I am not from New Mexico. I will state that clearly as 
we begin. But I have family in New Mexico, and I have held a 
field hearing in New Mexico. So, I am very honored to be part 
of this New Mexico-focused hearing.
    My question, though, is for Professor Washburn.
    Professor, I represent a coastal district, not in New 
Mexico, but I represent a coastal district in Southern 
California. While this hearing is focused on expanding tribal 
co-management on Federal lands, the focus has been on onshore 
Federal lands. Is there any reason, Professor, that we 
shouldn't also work to incorporate federally recognized tribes 
into the co-management of our ocean resources?
    As I think you know--I will give you an example--the Santa 
Ynez Band of Chumash Indian is trying to do just that with the 
proposed Chumash Marine Sanctuary. What can this Committee do 
to support the tribe's effort with NOAA?
    And what should we do to support co-management outside of 
the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture-held lands?
    Should Commerce and other departments issue Secretarial 
Orders similar to that issued by Interior and Agriculture, 
Professor Washburn?
    Mr. Washburn. Thank you, Congressman Lowenthal. Those are 
such important efforts, that cooperation around the fisheries 
and in California off the coast. I absolutely believe that co-
management can also work offshore. I think that is exactly 
right.
    I am not sure that NOAA and some other Federal agencies 
have quite enough authority necessarily to be doing a lot of 
this, but there are good reasons to do so.
    You heard a little bit about traditional ecological 
knowledge from my colleagues, and it is quite amazing what 
tribes bring to the table in management of fisheries. Alaska 
Natives can fairly accurately forecast a fish run, based on the 
prevalence of mosquitoes in a given season. And they live 
there, so they know.
    So, there are those kinds of things that make sense when 
you think about it, but it is not the way that traditional 
Westerners approach management of the resources. And they bring 
incredible wisdom like that. So, I absolutely think it is 
important for tribes to be involved in offshore management, as 
well. Thanks for raising that important point.
    Dr. Lowenthal. Is there anybody, any other panelists, that 
wants to jump into dealing with or expanding tribal co-
management to offshore also, to our fisheries like the Santa 
Ynez Chumash Indians?
    [No response.]
    Dr. Lowenthal. Well, I also agree and concur that it is 
very important, and I thank Professor Washburn. I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields. Thank you, 
Representative Lowenthal, for expanding the base. Us landlocked 
people sometimes don't place the balance right, and I 
appreciate your comments, and they are well taken and 
necessary.
    Let me recognize Representative Rosendale.
    Sir, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    [Pause.]
    Dr. Lowenthal. Mr. Rosendale?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, let me turn to Representative Garcia.
    You are recognized.
    Mr. Garcia. Mr. Chair, I just signed on. Can I pass for the 
next opportunity, please?
    Ms. Tlaib. I am ready. This is Rashida Tlaib from Michigan.
    The Chairman. Representative Tlaib, you are recognized. 
Thank you.
    Ms. Tlaib. Thank you, Chairman. I am so eager to welcome 
this panel and thank you so much, again, for your leadership in 
holding this important hearing.
    I am humbled by what we have learned from our Native 
Americans and traditional ecology-centered knowledge. Native 
Americans as a timeless connection to our lands that we inhabit 
today should help us, really inform us on how we can have a 
more sustainable, more managed preservation of our natural 
resources in our environment.
    Here in Michigan, I am incredibly proud to stand with over 
12 Native American tribes as they fight united against the Line 
5 oil pipeline owned by Enbridge. This company is responsible 
for one of the worst inland oil spills in American history. 
Line 5, for many of our communities, is a ticking time bomb 
threatening a huge, catastrophic impact on the environment, 
water, fish, wildlife of the Great Lakes, and endangering 
tribal communities' treaty rights. I was there, serving in the 
Michigan Legislature, when that spill happened in Kalamazoo, 
and it was devastating, and we are still trying to clean it up.
    It is disgusting that there is even a debate about whether 
dirty oil should flow through the waters that give us life in 
the Great Lakes region. But that is what happens when we allow 
corporate profits to matter more than environmental protection 
or our public health.
    Professor Kiel, can you talk about empowering Native 
Americans to use a traditional ecological knowledge to help 
guide the stewardship of our land, air, and water and shift the 
priorities and values of our Federal Government? Can you talk a 
little bit about that?
    And also, Professor, would land management more closely 
aligned with traditional--you know, what would that look like, 
when we align together those traditional ecology-centric 
knowledge?
    Dr. Kiel. Thank you, Representative Tlaib, for a really 
great question.
    There are a lot of potential ways to speak to that. I will 
draw from my own community's tradition, the Haudenosaunee 
people, otherwise known as the Iroquois Confederacy.
    In terms of one of the ways, how else could we approach 
these conversations, how else could we think about them 
alternatively, it is important to recognize in the 
Haudenosaunee intellectual tradition we have a philosophy that 
guides our decision making, and has since the formation of what 
we call the Great Law of Peace, which we refer to as the Seven 
Generations philosophy, which is a philosophy of long-term, 
sustainable planning as opposed to gambling on short-term 
futures. And that depth of planning is central to Haudenosaunee 
leadership. It is just one example, but it is a philosophy that 
reaches other communities across North America, as well.
    And all the decisions that we make in regards to our 
community are grounded in thinking about what is going to be in 
the best interests of the people for seven entire generations 
long. It is a really long time. It is not a brief period of 
time, it is approaching 200 years.
    So, for that scale of thought to be--how we approach these 
conversations, I think that is one important way to think about 
what it means to incorporate Indigenous thought into these 
dialogues, is to think about depth of time and different 
perspectives. That is a lot of what we are talking about with 
traditional ecological knowledge. This isn't about family 
histories that go back a few generations, or even seven 
generations. This is about thousands of years of history. And 
to really engage the depth of human experience and to pay 
adequate respect to it. I think that is a lot of what these 
conversations are about.
    And we are in a moment of crisis globally, where our 
reliance on fossil fuels puts us all in danger. Thank you.
    Ms. Tlaib. Thank you so much, Professor. I think it is safe 
to say, at a minimum, we need to implement real tribal co-
management. That is going to help us fight some of the threats 
like Line 5.
    Most of the jobs, especially in my community, from 
corporate polluters, they are temporary, and they will be of 
little use if another oil spill is allowed to destroy the 
source of our water and source of our life.
    Ms. DeCoteau, in your testimony, you give a great example 
of salmon restoration, and you say it is more than economics, 
politics, and that it is more than that. If you can, talk about 
the Native American, again, ecological management 
incorporation--incorporating the culture, values, and spiritual 
practices, how these values produce different resource 
management outcomes.
    Ms. DeCoteau. Yes, thank you so much for the question.
    I think I can rely, really, on our restoration plan, which 
I spoke a little bit about in my testimony regarding Wy-Kan-
Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit. It is the only restoration plan in the 
entire Columbia River Basin that looks at the entire life cycle 
of the salmon. So, we are looking at these out-migrating fish 
as juveniles, but, really, where they were born as eggs, and 
how they go up to the ocean and come back to those same exact 
places where they were born to spawn, and then, of course, die 
and give the resources of their body and the nutrients back to 
the rivers and streams that they were born in.
    I think that whole philosophy, in terms of how we look at 
restoration and management, is at a very watershed, basin-wide 
level, because everything is so interconnected, and we see 
that. And I, of course, come from a fisheries organization, but 
we do concentrate on all of our foods, which we call first 
foods. And traditionally, we have always operated on a calendar 
year of when those foods are available. So, we have an innate 
knowledge of and experience and expertise that goes back 
multitudes of generations looking at these areas.
    So, thank you.
    Ms. Tlaib. Sorry, Ms. DeCoteau, for not giving you enough 
time.
    Thank you, Chairman, for your patience.
    The Chairman. No, thank you. Let me now recognize 
Representative Rosendale.
    Sir, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    [Pause.]
    The Chairman. If Mr. Rosendale isn't available, let me now 
recognize Representative Garcia for 5 minutes.
    Sir, you are recognized.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the Ranking 
Member, and, of course, the witnesses for joining us today.
    The Federal Government has a unique relationship with the 
tribal governments. Our Constitution recognizes tribes as 
sovereign nations. Yet, to date, the Federal Government still 
fails to honor tribal sovereignty and treaty rights.
    Today's witnesses have shared their experience on the 
importance of tribal co-management and what that looks like in 
tribal communities.
    By listening to Indigenous communities on Federal land 
management decisions, we can protect the livelihood and well-
being of Indigenous communities. I applaud the Department of 
the Interior and the USDA for working to promote co-management 
of public lands with tribes and ensuring that tribal 
governments are involved throughout the land management 
decision-making process. I look forward to seeing how the 
Administration will put these principles into practice.
    A question for Professor Washburn: What incentives or 
requirements might the Department of the Interior provide to 
increase co-management engagements on the ground?
    Mr. Washburn. Thank you, Congressman. One of the things we 
need is just better communication and cooperation, and we need 
it in the Administration, we need it in Congress, we need it 
across our whole country, honestly.
    But one of the things we need to do is reward those tribal 
managers, those park superintendents, those fish and wildlife 
regional directors, those BLM state directors, reward them when 
they are having conversation with tribes. Let's encourage that. 
Let's put it in their performance evaluations. Let's reward 
them when they do it well. And that is just one simple thing 
that the Administration can do to encourage this sort of thing.
    We also need more tribal consultations--the Department, 
these agencies should go out and consult with tribes, perhaps 
on a regional basis, to try to find more opportunities to do 
this sort of thing.
    And those are two things that are not terribly difficult 
but can make a difference. Thanks for the wonderful question.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you, sir. A question for Ms. Aja 
DeCoteau.
    Your testimony mentioned the Commission entered into a 
self-determination contract with the Bureau of Indian Affairs 
to support the co-management of the Columbia River Basin. How 
did this contract assist you in your work in the Columbia River 
Basin?
    Ms. DeCoteau. Thank you, Representative, for the question.
    This contract of self-determination of 638 funds really was 
foundational to the creation of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal 
Fish Commission. It not only recognized the sovereignties of 
each of our member tribes acting individually, but also through 
our organization as an extension of kind of a policy and 
technical arm on behalf of the tribes.
    The contract provides the resources to develop policy, 
legal, scientific expertise to assist our tribal policymakers 
and leadership to make informed decisions that support co-
management efforts and are consistent with our tribal culture, 
our treaty rights, and, of course, the knowledge that we have.
    It also provides the resources to establish law enforcement 
services that are so critical on the Columbia River, and it 
also allows tribes to enforce their own fishing regulations as 
part of our tribal sovereignty. Thank you.
    Mr. Garcia. And how long did it take you to put such a 
contract together? How long did you work on it?
    Ms. DeCoteau. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Representative.
    CRITFC was formed in 1977, prior to me being born, so I am 
not really sure about the actual time it took to get that 
contract together. But I know that the reason we came together 
was because we were being denied access to the river to assert 
our treaty-reserved fishing rights. And we were being denied 
access by law enforcement.
    So, by giving us this contract, creating our own police 
department at CRITFC has given us the ability to take back our 
control over the fisheries management itself, and the 
enforcement of fishing laws and regulations, as well as assert 
ourselves. And any tribal members who do get cited go back into 
their own respective tribal government processes. Thank you.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you. And I think that is an example of a 
win-win situation for all stakeholders, and justice and self-
determination prevail. Thank you so much.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Representative Garcia. I think I 
am going to take this opportunity to recognize myself for some 
questions.
    Professor, speaking of the importance of Indigenous 
knowledge, this right following the European contact, the 
European colonists relied upon the Indigenous experiences, 
expertise, and support in navigating this new environment. 
Could you talk a little bit about that?
    Dr. Kiel. I would be happy to. Without being too bleak, it 
is fair to say that Europeans would not have survived on this 
continent without the assistance of traditional ecological 
knowledge, the knowledge Native people provided in terms of how 
to conduct agriculture in American soils, which was unknown.
    The innovations of three sisters' agriculture, for 
instance, which is growing of corn, beans, and squash together 
in ways that complement one another that are rich and 
sustainable for the soil are profoundly important practices. 
They come to shape the lives and well-being of the Americans 
after arrival.
    Oneida people, during the Revolutionary War, bringing our 
corn to starving soldiers at Valley Forge, one of many moments 
when our traditional crops have come to save Euro-Americans, 
for sure.
    The Chairman. Yes. The Federal Government's diminishment of 
the historical Indigenous land bases across this country, how 
has that affected--now that most of them are either Federal or 
state land--how has that affected the culturally relevant 
management of these lands?
    Once they were the land base of the tribe.
    Dr. Kiel. Yes, yes. I mean, most of these lands remain 
outside of Indigenous control.
    One way to emphasize how important it is to recognize that 
power imbalance, one way to put it is that, for Indigenous 
people, the Holy Land is here, right? Our sacred sites are 
here, not across an ocean somewhere. And I think that is an 
incredibly important framework for people to keep in mind, that 
we are talking about the management of other people's sacred 
lands, and that is part of the U.S. responsibility, is to come 
and understand them as part of this important work.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Yes, I have never understood that 
double standard, but that is me.
    Ms. DeCoteau, what additional resources could--well, better 
said, what advice would you share with the tribal government, a 
tribal organization, a Federal land manager seeking to 
establish a co-management relationship? What would be one 
central piece of advice?
    Ms. DeCoteau. Thank you for the question, Chair Grijalva. I 
would say, similar to what I explained in my testimony, is 
tribes have firsthand knowledge of current conditions and we 
have witnessed these changes over generations. And our 
knowledge can be used to further direct research. It could be 
used to flag problems and challenges. But, furthermore, it is 
to come together as partners to come to solutions for the 
benefit of all of the resources and all of the people that 
depend on them.
    I think there are excellent examples out there, in terms of 
how these partnerships have come together, even though it has 
taken a really long time, potentially. But I think I always 
point to the Yakima integrated plan as a bipartisan effort for 
all interests alike looking for a reliable quantity of water, 
clean water, and in-stream and out-of-stream uses alike.
    So, I would suggest that we don't need to reinvent the 
wheel in some cases. There are excellent examples out there. 
And, really, just to understand that our tribes know best about 
our lands, our waters, and our resources that thrive within 
them.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    Dean Washburn, we heard the Professor address the history 
of tribes, including the issue central to this discussion, land 
dispossession. In your opinion, do you think tribal co-
management is relevant in addressing the history the Professor 
discussed with us?
    And do you think this tribal co-management is a viable 
concept for land management agencies to consider?
    Mr. Washburn. Absolutely, Chairman. I have heard some 
criticism of you in this hearing for having this session right 
now, when we need to be focused, some would say, on energy 
independence.
    And I see my time is up. May I briefly conclude?
    The Chairman. Oh, please. I am the last one and I have a 
little bit of flexibility in the time right now, unless my good 
friend, the Ranking Member, will indulge----
    Mr. Moore. The benefits of being the Chair. Of course, you 
could continue.
    Mr. Washburn. Thank you, Ranking Member and Chair.
    The Chairman. Please.
    Mr. Washburn. Let me just say that tribal co-management is 
important to all of this stuff. I have heard people say that 
you should be focusing more on energy independence. Well, let 
me just say that, yes, using more American natural resources is 
a way to get to American energy independence, and tribes can 
help us all get there.
    Another way--and frankly, the long-term way we need to get 
to energy independence is to use fewer fossil resources. We 
need to get to that place, and I think we all agree on that, 
that it is better not to be reliant on all of these other 
countries for oil and gas. And that is a conservationist 
strategy, right? We need to use less, and tribes can help us 
get there, too.
    So, whatever your goals are in American public policy, 
tribal co-management is helpful. It is helpful to people on the 
right side of the aisle, it is helpful to people on the left. I 
think that is the one thing that I think you all agree on, even 
if you don't think this hearing should be happening right now. 
I think you have to realize that tribes can be good partners in 
helping you achieve your goals, and that is sort of the point 
that I would like to end on. Thank you, Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much. And I want to thank the 
witnesses for their valuable testimony.
    In one of the testimonies, we were talking about the 
concept of time, and the value and belief that Indigenous 
people put in the concept, the concept being thinking beyond 
one's self, that this will go on, and I think that is an 
important point to make to close for me, that we have some work 
to do, some information, but I think conceptually, as we 
redefine and as tribes redefine for us in the Federal 
Government what trust responsibility means in this real world, 
not in that other real world, but this time now, and how tribes 
are redefining for themselves what their parameters about 
sovereignty are and should be, co-management is a tool. And we 
are going to be earnest in pursuing that.
    And I want to thank all of you for the testimony. It was 
excellent. And it is a perfect time to have these discussions, 
because----
    Mr. Moore. Chair, we have another Member. We had a Member 
join. Representative Rosendale did just join.
    The Chairman. Can I finish? And I want to thank you for 
that.
    With that, let me recapture the one point I wanted to make. 
We are going to go forward with this, and it is not about an 
immediacy. We have an immediacy in front of us. It is a crisis 
of proportions, Ukraine and all the adjacent things that are 
occurring domestically and internationally on that issue. And 
we have to deal with it. No question about it, and we will.
    This issue is something that had been left in the past, and 
its immediacy is for us to think beyond ourselves for a second. 
And that is the point of this hearing.
    Mr. Rosendale, you are here, and my courtesy is to 
recognize you, sir. You have 5 minutes.
    Mr. Rosendale. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that, and 
I appreciate you giving me an opportunity to ask a couple of 
questions. I have been running two committees, as many of us 
do, at the same time.
    Last year's near-record-setting wildfire season 
demonstrated why it is so important to effectively manage our 
Federal lands. All of us on this Committee value our public 
lands. But in order to enjoy and conserve them, we need to 
allow common-sense forest management controlling highly 
flammable underbrush and vegetation. Neglecting to carry out 
common-sense management harms our public lands in the long run, 
leading to catastrophic wildfires, devastation, destruction, 
and cascading effects that hurts everything from our waterways 
and our fisheries to just weed management that ends up 
affecting other properties.
    Our tribal communities have a long history of managing our 
lands effectively to promote healthy forests. Mr. Desautel, can 
you expand on how tribal partners can help mitigate wildfire 
risk and improve forest health through co-management 
agreements?
    Mr. Desautel. Yes, and thank you for the question. This is 
something we talk about quite a bit with Federal agencies, that 
there needs to first be a recognition that you can't take fire 
out of fire-adapted ecosystems we have in the West. And, 
really, the focus should be changed on how we make landscapes 
resilient so that those post-fire conditions are more in line 
with what would have happened historically.
    So, when we look at co-management, it really means tribes 
need to have a seat at the table when the decisions are made, 
so that we can ensure that those tribal priorities and those 
tribal perspectives are included in what that project 
development looks like.
    And, again, based on the tribal examples we have across the 
country, we can build that resilience into the landscape. And 
there is example after example of fires that have occurred on 
reservations that have had much lower fire severity compared to 
fires that happened on adjacent Federal lands. So, again, I 
think there is great opportunity to share that knowledge, share 
that wisdom and experience with Federal agencies, but the 
tribes have to have an active and, really, a prioritized 
decision-making process that they are included in.
    Mr. Rosendale. I appreciate that, and I think it goes back 
to something that we established early on in this Committee in 
working with the tribes, and that is no decisions about us 
without us. It rings very true, and it is very effective.
    There is a forest research lab just outside of Missoula, 
Montana. It is called the Lubrecht facility. And I would invite 
anyone on this Committee to come up. I will arrange an 
appointment so that we could review that, and you will see the 
difference in the landscape where the forest has been 
mechanically treated, it has had fire treatment, it has had 
both, it has had none, and there are stark differences.
    While we are on questions, what is the impact of permitting 
requirements on the ability of tribal communities to engage in 
activities to improve forest health and mitigate wildfire risk?
    Mr. Desautel. Is that question for me, as well?
    Mr. Rosendale. Yes, I am sorry. Yes, with you.
    Mr. Desautel. Thank you. On reservations, we have control 
of that permitting process and the NEPA documentation process. 
So, that is not really a limitation on tribal land, but we are 
subject to line officers for whatever the respective Federal 
agency is if we are doing that work off the reservation.
    So, there are challenges with process. Again, those 
processes are largely dictated by whatever that agency's agenda 
is, and those typically don't align with what the tribal 
priorities are. So, again, when we look at tribal co-
management, we really need to have a seat at the table in the 
decision-making process, and ensure that we, to the extent we 
can, work through those regulatory policies and procedures to 
ensure that what we are doing aligns with the forest management 
plan, and that those forest management plans include the tribal 
priorities up front.
    Mr. Rosendale. Very good. In Montana, the Forest Service 
has set a sustainable yield amount to harvest timber of about 
140 million board feet a year. Unfortunately, because of 
litigation and delays caused by environmental groups, they are 
only reaching about 40 million board feet a year. I mean, just 
dramatically less than that.
    In your opinion, how does that litigation affect forest 
management activities?
    Mr. Desautel. Well, based on what we have seen in climate 
change, if you are not actively managing ahead of the 
disturbance event, primarily wildfire, that Mother Nature will 
do it for you, and she likely won't do it at the scale you 
want, and the outcomes probably won't be consistent with what 
you had planned.
    I think it is important that we work through the regulatory 
process and collaborate with other interest holders to ensure 
that there is support for those projects, and we get them done 
before that fire hits.
    Mr. Rosendale. Great. Thank you so much.
    Mr. Chair, I see my time is expired. I would yield back. 
Thank you again for accommodating me.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Rosendale.
    If there is nobody else, hearing no one seeking 
recognition, I want to thank the witnesses and thank the staff 
for putting together an excellent hearing. The meeting is 
adjourned. Thank you.

    [Whereupon, at 1:20 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                                 [all]