[Senate Hearing 117-442]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




                                                        S. Hrg. 117-442
 
   BUY NATIVE AMERICAN: FEDERAL SUPPORT FOR NATIVE BUSINESS CAPACITY 
                          BUILDING AND SUCCESS

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

                                HEARING

                               before the

                      COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                             MARCH 16, 2022

                               __________

         Printed for the use of the Committee on Indian Affairs
         
         
         
         
 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
 
 
 
 
 
                              ______
  
               U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
49-426 PDF             WASHINGTON : 2022 
 
 
         
         
         
         
         


                      COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

                     BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii, Chairman
                 LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Vice Chairman
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington           JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
JON TESTER, Montana                  JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma
CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada       STEVE DAINES, Montana
TINA SMITH, Minnesota                MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico            JERRY MORAN, Kansas
       Jennifer Romero, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
        Lucy Murfitt, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
        
        
                            C O N T E N T S
                            

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hearing held on March 16, 2022...................................     1
Statement of Senator Cortez Masto................................    22
Statement of Senator Daines......................................    26
Statement of Senator Hoeven......................................    21
Statement of Senator Murkowski...................................    16
Statement of Senator Schatz......................................     1
Statement of Senator Smith.......................................    24

                               Witnesses

Garriott, Wizipan, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Indian 
  Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior.......................     2
    Prepared statement...........................................     3
Hennigh, Gary, City Administrator, King Cove, Alaska.............    44
    Prepared statement...........................................    46
Hipp, Janie Simms, General Counsel, U.S. Department of 
  Agriculture....................................................     8
    Prepared statement...........................................     9
Holden, Lexie, Associate Director of Policy and Government 
  Relations, Intertribal Agriculture Council.....................    29
    Prepared statement...........................................    31
Johns, Wahleah, Director, Office of Indian Energy Policy and 
  Programs, U.S. Department of Energy............................    12
    Prepared statement...........................................    14
Maunakea-Forth, J. Kukui, Founder/Executive Director, MA'O 
  Organic Farms..................................................    40
    Prepared statement...........................................    41
Willie, JT, Executive Director, Navajo Nation Division of 
  Economic Development...........................................    35
    Prepared statement...........................................    36

                                Appendix

Response to written questions submitted to Wahleah Johns by:
    Hon. Ben Ray Lujan...........................................    68
    Hon. Lisa Murkowski..........................................    67
    Hon. Mike Rounds.............................................    67
    Hon. Brian Schatz............................................    65
Response to written questions submitted to Janie Simms Hipp by:
    Hon. Ben Ray Lujan...........................................    58
    Hon. Lisa Murkowski..........................................    63
    Hon. Mike Rounds.............................................    61
    Hon. Brian Schatz............................................    57
    Hon. John Tester.............................................    63
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Brian Schatz to:
    Lexie Holden.................................................    64
    J. Kukui Maunakea-Forth......................................    64
United South and Eastern Tribes Sovereignty Protection Fund, 
  prepared statement.............................................    53


   BUY NATIVE AMERICAN: FEDERAL SUPPORT FOR NATIVE BUSINESS CAPACITY 
                          BUILDING AND SUCCESS

                              ----------                              


                       WEDNESDAY, MARCH 16, 2022


                                       U.S. Senate,
                               Committee on Indian Affairs,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 4:00 p.m. in room 
628, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Brian Schatz, 
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.

            OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BRIAN SCHATZ, 
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII

    The Chairman. Good afternoon, and welcome. We appreciate 
your accommodating our schedule change.
    We wanted to be there at the White House as President Biden 
reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act. The bipartisan 
work of this Committee, its staff and the whole Administration, 
and everybody across Indian Country, Alaska Natives, Native 
Hawaiians, it was a moment worth celebrating. So we appreciate 
your allowing us to do that.
    In his State of the Union Address earlier this month, 
President Biden renewed his Administration's commitment to Buy 
American and advance our Nation's economic security. Today's 
hearing entitled Buy Native American: Federal Support for 
Native Business Capacity Building and Success focuses on this 
commitment as it applies to Native communities. Specifically, 
we will examine how existing and newly developed Federal 
programs help to provide Native businesses with equitable 
access to capital markets and look at ways this Federal support 
can be improved.
    Native-owned enterprises power community development, 
create jobs, and drive innovation in diverse sectors of the 
economy, from agriculture to clean energy to tourism. According 
to the Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development, 
Native economies contribute more than $127 billion to the 
United States economy on an annual basis, making them crucial 
sustaining forces, not just for their own communities, but for 
the whole Country.
    Yet lack of access to capital and limited local 
infrastructure among other unique burdens restrict Native 
business' full access to the marketplace. These barriers 
persist despite dedicated Federal programs to serve Native 
businesses with funding, technical, and administrative 
assistance.
    This Committee has an oversight responsibility to study not 
just the how but the why this inequity continues. Following 
passage of the recent Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and 
continuing implementation of the 2018 Farm Bill, we have a lot 
to consider.
    I would like to extend a warm welcome, especially an aloha, 
to Ms. Kukui Maunakea-Forth, and to our other witnesses who are 
joining us today. I look forward to your testimony and your 
discussion.
    I will introduce the first panel, and when Senator 
Murkowski comes, we will have her opening statement whenever 
that may occur. On the first panel we have Wizipan Garriott, 
the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs for 
the Department of the Interior; Janie Simms Hipp, General 
Counsel for the Department of Agriculture; and Wahleah Johns, 
Director of the Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs, 
Department of Energy.
    I want to remind our witnesses that your full written 
testimony will be made part of the official record. So please 
keep your statement to no more than five minutes, so that 
members have time for questions.
    Assistant Secretary Garriott, you may begin.

        STATEMENT OF WIZIPAN GARRIOTT, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY 
  ASSISTANT SECRETARY, INDIAN AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE 
                            INTERIOR

    Mr. Garriott. Hello and good afternoon, Chairman Schatz, it 
is good to see you again. Iyuha cante nape ciyuzapelo. I greet 
you with a good heart. Wizipan emciyapelo, na Sicangu Lakota 
hemaca. My name is Wizipan Garriott, and I am a citizen of the 
Rosebud Sioux Tribe. I serve as Principal Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Indian Affairs at the U.S. Department of 
Interior.
    Thank you for the opportunity to present the Department's 
testimony at this important oversight hearing.
    The socioeconomic success of Indian Country is close to my 
heart. I grew up culturally wealthy with a loving family. But 
we were economically poor. My home reservation has for decades 
ranked as one of the 10 poorest counties in the Country on a 
per capita income basis.
    Prior to joining the Administration, I ran my tribe's 
economic development corporation where we created jobs, started 
numerous businesses and stood up an emerging CDFI and a 
community-based non-profit.
    The Department has an important trust responsibility to 
support tribes and tribal governments in protecting their 
people, lands, assets and resources. Indian Country is diverse, 
and every tribal community is unique, with varying degrees of 
financial and business capacity. Therefore, our work must be 
interdisciplinary and multifaceted.
    The Department directly supports economic development 
through the Bureau of Indian Affairs Office of Indian Economic 
Development, which provides loans, grants, and technical 
assistance to tribes, tribal enterprises, and individually 
owned businesses. The OIED Division of Capital Investment, 
delivers the Indian Loan Guarantee and Insurance Program. In 
operation for nearly 50 years, this program has helped Indian 
businesses secure over $2 worth of private loans, while 
maintaining one of the lowest loss rates among similar Federal 
programs.
    The OIED Division of Economic Development administers 
competitive grants, including the Native American Business 
Development Institute Grant, the National Tribal Broadband 
Grant, the Tribal Tourism Grant, the Indian Business Incubators 
Program, the Indigenous Tourism Grant, and the Living Language 
Grant. These programs deploy much-needed capital by supporting 
and building economic capacity throughout Indian Country.
    Helping tribes develop their energy resources is also 
important. The BIA Office of Trust Services Division of Energy 
and Mineral Development provides technical assistance, grants, 
capacity building, and marketing assistance to tribal mineral 
renewable and natural resource owners to support sustainable 
tribal economies and to manage their own resources. Currently, 
the Office is partner on 229 projects on 145 reservations 
through both technical assistance and awarded grants.
    The Buy Indian Act is another important economic 
development tool. The Act authorizes the Department of the 
Interior and the Department of Health and Human Services to 
purchase supplies, services, and certain kinds of construction 
equipment from qualified Native American vendors. The 
Department has prioritized supporting Indian economic 
enterprises. In Fiscal Year 2018, Buy Indian Act purchasing was 
$85.4 million. In Fiscal Year 2021, it was nearly $280 million, 
which represents 59 percent of all Indian Affairs purchasing 
power.
    The Department is in the process of updating its Buy Indian 
Act regulations and expects to complete these updates by the 
end of spring. It is anticipated that over the next several 
years, the new regulations will result in up to 65 percent of 
Indian Affairs purchases being Buy Indian. This could 
potentially result in up to $325 million flowing to Indian 
Country businesses on an annual basis.
    Our work has also expanded where statutorily authorized to 
support Native Hawaiian communities. In 2021, OIED began 
assisting Native Hawaiian organizations with the enhancement 
and integration of indigenous tourism through the NATIVE Act.
    Also today, the Department is proud to announce that we 
have approved our first tribal energy development organization 
for the Red Lake Tribe. The approval will allow Red Lake to 
forego Secretarial review when it enters into a lease or 
business agreement with TEDO, and when it enters into rights of 
way with the TEDO.
    This Administration is firmly committed to working with 
tribes to meaningfully support economic development for 
American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians. Thank 
you for the opportunity to provide the Department's views on 
these important matters.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Garriott follows:]

  Prepared Statement of Wizipan Garriott, Principal Deputy Assistant 
       Secretary, Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior
    Hello and good afternoon, Chairman Schatz, Vice Chair Murkowski, 
and members of the Committee. Iyuha cante nape ciyuzapelo. I greet you 
with a good heart. Wizipan emciyapelo, na Sicangu Lakota hemaca. My 
name is Wizipan Garriott, and I am a citizen of the Rosebud Sioux 
Tribe. I serve as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Indian 
Affairs at the U.S. Department of the Interior (Department). Thank you 
for the opportunity to present the Department's testimony at this 
important oversight hearing titled ``Buy Native American: Federal 
Support for Native Business Capacity Building and Success.''
    The socioeconomic success of Indian country is an issue that is 
especially important to me. I was fortunate enough to grew up 
culturally wealthy with a loving family. But we were economically poor. 
My earliest memories are of no running water and frost on the walls of 
our one room trailer house in the winter. Through hard work my parents 
built a comfortable life for our family and helped me pay for college. 
But others in my community were not so fortunate. My home reservation 
has for decades ranked as one of the 10 poorest counties in the country 
on a per capita income basis. Prior to joining this Administration, I 
ran my Tribe's economic development corporation where we started 
numerous businesses and stood up an emerging community development 
financial institution (CDFI) and a highly successful community-based 
nonprofit.
    The Department has an important trust responsibility to support 
tribes and tribal governments in protecting their people, lands, 
assets, and resources. This responsibility includes supporting and 
promoting economic development in American Indian, Alaska Native, and 
Native Hawaiian communities to support prosperity, meaningful 
livelihoods, and self-sufficient and sustainable economies. Indian 
country is unique and diverse, with different historical, geographic, 
and socioeconomic circumstances and varying regulatory, financial, and 
business capacities. Therefore, our work must be multifaceted, 
interdisciplinary, and collaborative.
    The economies of Indian country in many ways mirror the larger 
economy. Tribes, tribally owned enterprises, and individual 
entrepreneurs are industry leaders in a wide variety of sectors, 
including manufacturing, hospitality, tourism, farming, ranching, 
processing, technology, IT, entertainment, telecommunications, finance 
and investments, and many more. Tribes and tribal entrepreneurs operate 
buffalo ranches, market produce and vegetables in mainstream stores, 
own energy development enterprises, provide AI services to the 
Department of Defense, create award winning art and TV shows, and 
contribute to the American economy in virtually every imaginable way.
    It is also important to note that Indian country has a long and 
storied economic history. Tribal industriousness, ingenuity and use of 
technology created thriving communities rich in food, clothing, 
weaponry, horses, art, and other goods that were connected by vast 
inter-tribal trade networks spanning the entire continent. Tribal 
agricultural and natural resource management practices produced 
abundance, ensuring community safety nets for the elderly and disabled 
while promoting work and dignity across the entire community. 
Individuals often spoke multiple languages, including sign language, to 
facilitate diplomacy and trade. It is upon this foundation that tribes 
have and are building their futures, and it is our job to support 
Indian country in revitalizing their economies.
Office of Indian Economic Development
    The Bureau of Indians Affairs (BIA) Office of Indian Economic 
Development (OIED) provides technical assistance, training, and funding 
to assist tribes and tribal members with starting and sustaining their 
businesses, bringing ideas to the marketplace, and taking advantage of 
government and private procurement opportunities. Through these 
efforts, OIED provides tribal business owners avenues to address the 
lack of access to credit and limited economic opportunities that exist 
in many American Indian and Alaska Native communities. Recent 
legislation has expanded eligibility for some of these services to 
Native Hawaiian Organizations (NHOs). OIED primarily fulfills its work 
in three interconnected ways: providing access to capital; grants; and 
technical assistance.
Access to Capital
    Within OIED the Division of Capital Investment (DCI) delivers the 
Indian Loan Guarantee and Insurance Program (ILGP.) This program 
supports Federally recognized tribes, bands, nations, pueblos, 
rancherias, villages, communities, corporations and their members 
secure conventional business financing on terms comparable to the non-
Indian business community, by guaranteeing or insuring up to 90 percent 
of outstanding loan principal and interest.
    DCI works with lenders and their borrowers to help applicants meet 
the ``reasonable prospect of repayment'' standard required for 
guarantee or insurance approval. Loans must have a positive economic 
impact on a tribe or tribal service area but can otherwise be used for 
nearly any business purposes--from real estate, equipment or inventory 
purchase, working capital, construction or renovation, revolving lines 
of credit, and refinancing.
    In operation for nearly 50 years, this program has helped Indian 
businesses secure over $2 billion worth of private loans, while 
maintaining one of the lowest loss rates among similar federal 
programs. In fiscal year (FY) 2020 the ILGP leveraged $7,042,637 of 
federal funding to create $126,517,775 of investment in Indian country. 
In FY 2021, the ILGP leveraged $10,204,000 of federal funding to create 
$80,281,006 of investment in Indian country. It is clear, the more we 
invest in the ILGP, the more Indian country will leverage this vital 
and important program to help support their communities.
Grant Programs
    Within OIED, the Division of Economic Development (DED) administers 
competitive grants to support Native entrepreneurs, broadband 
deployment, business development feasibility studies, and the 
documentation and revitalization of tribal languages. DED Grant 
Programs include the:

  Native American Business Development Institute Grant--Helps 
        tribes weigh their risks to determine whether a project is 
        worth pursuing and empower them to make informed decisions 
        about their economic futures. Results from studies can often 
        help tribes persuade lenders and investors to provide financial 
        backing to help turn their idea into a reality.

  National Tribal Broadband Grant--Provides tribes the 
        opportunity to receive funding to develop or extend broadband 
        services in their communities.

  Tribal Tourism Grant--Increases capacity for tribes to plan, 
        develop and manage tourism and related infrastructure in 
        support of economic development. This includes NATIVE Act 
        supporting grants for tribal tourism feasibility studies and 
        tribal tourism business plan development.

  Indian Business Incubators Program--Provides funds to 
        establish and run business incubators that serve entrepreneurs 
        who will provide products or services in American Indian and 
        Alaska Native communities.

  Indigenous Tourism--Provides technical assistance to tribes 
        in the areas of tourism planning, management, and product 
        development.

  Living Languages Grant Program--Provides funds to tribes to 
        document and revitalize at risk languages.

Technical Assistance
    As awareness of OIED services grows so too does the need to expand 
technical assistance. Currently, OIED provides technical assistance 
through grant training such as pre-application training, grant writing, 
and business planning. Technical assistance is available to all 
interested tribes, tribal organizations, and NHOs.
    In addition to providing full life-cycle technical support services 
to OIED grantees and applicants, both virtual and onsite training 
events are opportunities to strengthen the connection between 
recipients and the federal staff who oversee these programs.
Office of Trust Services--Division of Energy and Mineral Development
    Within the BIA Office of Trust Services, the Division of Energy and 
Mineral Development (DEMD) provides technical assistance, grants, and 
marketing assistance to tribal mineral, renewable, and natural resource 
owners to support sustainable tribal economies through environmentally 
sound management of their resources.
    DEMD provides technical staff to assist federally recognized Indian 
tribes to identify and implement opportunities to maximize their 
revenue streams for economic resource development. This includes:

  Assessment of resources quality and quantity.

  Engineering Assessments--design, modeling, economic, 
        analyses, equipment needs throughout the project.

  Marketing--local, regional, and national sales forecasts, 
        marketing forecasting, existing and future competitions, 
        opportunities and challenges.

  Financial--short and long-term income streams, financial 
        documents, potential lenders, government contracts, grants, and 
        federal funding initiatives.

  Loans--BIA Loan Guarantees, other loan guarantee programs, 
        and assistance with working with local, regional, and national 
        lending institutions.

    DEMD is currently a partner on 229 projects on 145 reservations 
through both technical assistance and awarded grants. In FY 2020 $8.1 
million in grant funds were awarded.
Buy Indian Act
    The Buy Indian Act authorizes the Departments of the Interior and 
Health and Human Services to purchase supplies, services and certain 
kinds of construction equipment from qualified Native American vendors 
(``Indian Economic Enterprises''). The Department, including the Office 
of the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs (AS-IA), BIA, and Bureau 
of Indian Education, has prioritized supporting Indian Economic 
Enterprises through the Buy Indian Act and plans to increase purchases 
from FY 2021 of $279.6 million in FY 2022. Indian Affairs is currently 
in the process of awarding new construction contracts for three BIE 
schools to Indian Small Business Economic Enterprises.
    Implementation of the Buy Indian Act has been an evolutionary 
process. Originally enacted in 1910, the Department developed 
implementing regulations in 2013 with an increased emphasis in Buy 
Indian Act usage during FY 2019. As a result, Buy Indian Act purchasing 
has increased from $124.4 million in FY 2019 to $279.6 million in FY 
2021, which represents 59 percent of all Indian Affairs purchasing 
directly supporting Indian enterprises. Updated regulations are being 
developed according to consultation with Indian country. It is 
anticipated that these updated regulations, over several years, will 
result in up to 65 percent of eligible Buy Indian Act purchasing and 
will result in a steady increase of eligible Buy Indian Act obligations 
being awarded to Indian Economic Enterprises.
Office of Native Hawaiian Relations
    Since 2004, the Office of Native Hawaiian Relations (ONHR) has been 
principally responsible for carrying out the Secretary's trust 
responsibilities under the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act (HHCA), State 
of Hawaii Admission Act, and the Hawaiian Home Lands Recovery Act. In 
addition, ONHR has facilitated interagency efforts to address 
inequities that have plagued the Native Hawaiian Community in areas 
including economic development, educational achievement, health, 
housing, climate adaption, and the impacts of social and political 
dislocation.
    In 2021, the Department administered the first economic development 
program specific to the Native Hawaiian Community. This included two 
cooperative agreements of $600,000. ONHR, in collaboration with the 
OIED, assisted NHOs with the enhancement and integration of indigenous 
tourism through the NATIVE Act.
    In addition, economic development grant pre-application training, 
grant writing and business plan development, sustainability training, 
and coordination of an annual tourism grantee meeting has been extended 
to all interested NHOs. The Department is committed to expanding on 
these economic development opportunities for the Native Hawaiian 
Community.
NATIVE Act Implementation
    The Department has utilized Community Economic Development and Road 
Maintenance funds from FYs 2019--2022 to implement the NATIVE Act 
administered by the BIA's Office of Indian Services (OIS) Division of 
Transportation and OIED to support:

  A five-year, performance-based cooperative agreement with the 
        American Indian Alaska Native Tourism Association (AIANTA).

  Cooperative agreement with George Washington University to 
        promote tourism to tribal locations in North Dakota and South 
        Dakota.

  Cooperative agreement with Virginia Polytechnic Institute and 
        Virginia Tech to foster inter-tribal tourism in Montana and 
        Virginia.

  Grant with the Taos Community Economic Development 
        Corporation to promote agricultural-tourism and food-based 
        visitation.

  Grant with a Native vendor to develop visitation centered 
        around the Navajo Nation's sheep and woolen culture.

    Moving forward, OIED will utilize NATIVE Act resources across 
Indian country through technical assistance and grant opportunities.
White House Council on Native American Affairs
    The White House Council on Native American Affairs (WHCNAA) 
Committee on Economic Development, Energy, and Infrastructure 
(Committee) over the past year has focused on improving tribal access 
to federal resources, including access and utilization of funding from 
the American Rescue Plan (ARP) and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law 
(BIL). The Committee is co-led by the Departments of Commerce (DOC), 
Transportation (DOT), Energy (DOE), and the Small Business 
Administration (SBA) with membership including Departments of the 
Interior, Housing and Urban Development, Treasury, Health and Human 
Services, Labor (DOL), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and more. 
The Committee meets at least once a month to coordinate, develop, and 
execute inter-agency efforts.
    Over the past year, the Committee has supported inter-agency 
efforts for infrastructure that enables commerce and business, such as 
broadband. The Committee supported the organization of the 2021 
National Tribal Broadband Summit, helped coordinate technical 
assistance on the Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program, and, most 
recently, supported the White House Tribal Broadband Briefing with 
Tribal leaders in February.
    The Committee has also coordinated technical assistance 
opportunities for ARP and BIL funding by developing a central calendar 
of inter-agency events on the WHCNAA webpage: https://www.bia.gov/
sites/bia.gov/files/assets/as-ia/opa/whcnaa/
Upcoming_ARP_and_BIL_Support_Sessions_for_Tribes.pdf.
    The Committee Cabinet-level leadership hosted a Tribal Engagement 
Session on January 31, with Secretary Haaland, DOT Secretary Buttigieg, 
DOE Secretary Granholm, EPA Administrator Regan, and DOC Deputy 
Secretary Graves. The Committee helped organize this virtual event for 
Tribal leaders for which over 1,000 people registered. The Cabinet 
leadership shared what economic development and infrastructure-related 
resources were available and heard recommendations from Tribal leaders.
    The Committee also supported the 2021 White House Tribal Nations 
Summit in November 2021, which featured two panels focusing on economic 
development and infrastructure resources. These panels had Tribal 
leaders and SBA Administrator Guzman, DOL Secretary Walsh, DOE 
Secretary Granholm, and DOT Secretary Buttigieg.
Joint Secretarial Order 3403
    On November 15, 2021, Secretary Haaland and Secretary of 
Agriculture Vilsack issued Secretarial Order 3403: Joint Secretarial 
Order on Fulfilling the Trust Responsibility to Indian Tribes in the 
Stewardship of Federal Lands and Waters. This Secretarial 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 Department recognizes and values tribes' traditional ecological 
knowledge of the lands the Department administers. Our collaboration 
with tribes, through co-stewardship and the incorporation of tribal 
ecological knowledge into federal management practices, strengthens the 
management of the nation's public lands.
    Co-stewardship agreements also strengthen tribal economies through 
providing opportunities for more robust tribal tourism and land 
management. The Department is looking to implement the Secretarial 
Order in several ways including a full range of co-stewardship 
agreements, inclusive of but not limited to formal co-management.
Supporting Native Communities
    The Biden Administration has prioritized bringing vital resources 
to American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian communities 
through the BIL.
    The BIL provides:

  $466 million investment in tribal climate resilience and 
        infrastructure, including: $216 million to address the effects 
        of climate change and $250 million for irrigation and power, 
        safety of dams, water sanitation and other construction;

  $2.5 billion to help the Department fulfill settlements of 
        Indian water rights claims;

  $16 billion to address legacy pollution, including $150 
        million in Tribal grants to plug and remediate orphan oil and 
        gas wells; and

  authorizes $270 million over five years for the BIA road 
        maintenance program.

    The Department held consultations with tribes on BIL funding in 
January and we are working to ensure this funding gets out to Indian 
country as soon as possible.
Conclusion
    This Administration is firmly committed to working with Tribal 
governments to meaningfully support economic development for American 
Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians. Thank you for the 
opportunity to provide the Department's views on these important 
issues.

    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    Ms. Simms Hipp, please proceed.

STATEMENT OF JANIE SIMMS HIPP, GENERAL COUNSEL, U.S. DEPARTMENT 
                         OF AGRICULTURE

    Ms. Simms Hipp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is wonderful to 
be here with you today. I hope we have lots of time to cover 
lots of different topic areas.
    You do already have my written testimony. I am not going to 
read it to you today. I am sure everyone will be relieved by 
that.
    I did want to hit on a few points that I think are really 
important in terms of what the United States Department of 
Agriculture can bring to this discussion today.
    Some of you may not know, but we have many, many mission 
areas within the Department of Agriculture. We have so many 
programs that are of assistance to tribes, to tribal 
governments, to Native people. I am here to talk about as many 
of those today as you wish.
    I did want to bring out a few things that are important, I 
think, in our written testimony today for this hearing. One is 
food security. Food security, as we know, is a challenge within 
many Native communities. USDA has an entire portfolio that 
focuses on issues related to food security.
    Rural development, our infrastructure programs, are 
critical to tribal governments. Our supply chain and capacity 
building efforts that we are undertaking right now in this 
Administration to really address some of the supply chain 
rigidity and weaknesses that we saw during the pandemic, and we 
are heavily involved in pushing forward in those areas across 
multiple mission areas and multiple agencies in the Department.
    But we are also taking a hard, hard look at every single 
one of our authorities and our programs. My office, the Office 
of General Counsel, is deeply involved within even our General 
Counsel lawyers across the Department to literally reexamine 
all of our authorities and determine where the barriers are for 
tribes, for tribal governments, for Native Corporations, for 
tribal entities. That is already underway. We have already 
reconfigured ourselves within the Office of General Counsel.
    We have a new Indian Law Working Group that is literally 
dissecting every single program that we have. Our job is to 
find barriers to participation. If we can fix them within the 
Department, we will do so. Some of those barriers may need your 
help. And we will be sure to reach out and we will remain 
available to all of your staff to talk through those issues as 
we uncover them.
    We are committed within the Department to take on a new set 
of eyes to all of our programs, to really think about USDA's 
programs from the concept and from the eyes of indigenous 
people. That is already underway.
    Tribal coordination and consultation, our Office of Tribal 
Relations has been reconstituted within the Office of the 
Secretary. Those consultations are happening at a rapid pace. 
We have a multi-day consultation around all of our programs 
that is going to take place over an entire week in the early 
part of April.
    But I will tell you, we are also reaching out to people in 
other departments. Wizipan can tell you, we already have a nice 
coordination effort going on between my Office of General 
Counsel at USDA and the Solicitor's Office at the Department of 
Interior so that we can work together. Because what we have 
found at USDA is that particularly around issues such as Native 
agriculture, we must do these things in coordination with them. 
We cannot fix everything that Native agriculturists need us to 
fix alone. We must do it in an interdepartmental coordination 
effort.
    I want to just briefly touch on traditional ecological 
knowledge, indigenous knowledge. We are also taking a look at 
all of our authorities to determine where and when those kinds 
of knowledge, ways of knowing, can be incorporated into our 
programs. I can share a little bit of information about that 
with you as we move along.
    So just in conclusion, we are looking for barriers, we are 
looking to establish new ways of thinking and doing at USDA. We 
are looking to strengthen and enforce and really give life to 
self-determination, and look at our entire portfolio at USDA 
through the indigenous perspective.
    I will look forward to all sorts of questions from you and 
we will keep moving. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Simms Hipp follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Janie Simms Hipp, General Counsel, U.S. 
                       Department of Agriculture
    Chairman Schatz, Vice Chair Murkowski, and Members of the 
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to come before you today to 
discuss the state of economic development in Indian Country and the 
role that the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) plays in 
supporting Tribal Nations, Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians. I come 
to you as the first Chickasaw woman to serve as General Counsel of 
USDA, a Senate-confirmed position.
    The USDA plays a central role in supporting food security, rural 
infrastructure, and agricultural and forestry industries across the 
nation. USDA has deep roots in rural communities--with hundreds of 
local offices across the most rural parts of America and a presence in 
more than seventy countries around the world.
    Yet, the Department of Agriculture has a long, complicated history 
with food, agriculture, and outreach in Indian Country. We acknowledge 
that we have not always listened to indigenous perspectives. I am 
grateful to be testifying before the Senate Committee on Indian 
Affairs, which will be an invaluable partner in our efforts to rebuild 
trusted relationships with Tribal Nations and enhance our support of 
Tribal economic development. Furthermore, we acknowledge that federal 
treaty and trust responsibilities are shared by the entire federal 
government, including the USDA.
    Under the Biden-Harris Administration, USDA is embracing the 
opportunity to improve this history and truly do better. Regular, 
meaningful and robust consultations with Tribal leadership underscore 
the degree to which COVID-19 compounded supply chain interruptions and 
exposed deep cracks in our food systems--cracks that disproportionately 
affect Tribal and rural Americans. USDA heard two specific pieces of 
feedback--that new and expanded tools can help support Tribal Nations 
in their efforts to increase supply chain resiliency and that they seek 
food sovereignty to ensure that local production can have a local 
impact.
    We have engaged many times with Tribal leadership in consultation 
on a variety of topics. Very often, those discussions have pointed to 
COVID-19 disruptions that have exposed numerous areas where USDA's 
programs and services can have new or expanded impact. Specifically, we 
heard and understand that food sovereignty is Tribal sovereignty. To 
that end, we have launched an Indigenous Food Sovereignty Initiative 
which is meant to aid USDA in rethinking our programs in new ways to 
support food sovereignty in Indian Country.
    This vision requires originality and innovation in order to drive 
real economic development in Tribal communities. The Department is 
examining existing programs and new authorities to find ways to support 
Native seed saving, wild food foraging, and use of traditional foods to 
meet nutritional needs. The Department is also working to support 
Native producers to identify markets inside and outside Indian Country, 
access USDA food procurement programs, and promote native-produced 
foods. Rethinking our food and agricultural programs within this 
context will require administrative and statutory changes to support 
Native agricultural producers through farm and rural development 
programs. We welcome the opportunity to collaborate with Congress to 
rethink creative ways to keep old promises.
Food Security
    Lack of Tribal trust in the federal government is partially rooted 
in our failure to ensure that Tribes across the United States have 
access to enough food. More than sixty percent of counties with a 
majority Native population were projected to experience higher rates of 
hunger in 2020. \1\ In a pre-pandemic study of hunger in four Tribes, 
the University of California Berkley found that ninety-two percent of 
households in the geographic region suffered from food insecurity. \2\ 
USDA's feeding programs have often fallen short in addressing Tribal 
hunger, nor have they leveraged the knowledge of Tribal leaders to 
better manage programs and incorporate traditional foods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/native-
american
    \2\ https://nifa.usda.gov/announcement/video-games-offer-clues-
help-curb-animal-disease-outbreaks-farmer-swine-wearing-white
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    An important way to address this problem is by connecting Tribal 
farmers and ranchers to feeding programs. We are grateful that in the 
2018 Farm Bill Congress granted USDA the authority to operate a Food 
Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR) Self-Determination 
Demonstration Project. This project enabled the Food and Nutrition 
Service to select projects from Tribes administering FDPIR and permit 
the Tribes to directly purchase foods for their FDPIR packages.
    USDA implemented the Demonstration Project in November 2021 and 
disbursed $3.5 million to eight Tribes. \3\ In total, seven projects 
were selected involving eight Tribes, and each pilot project made a 
Tribal or native produced purchase. The joint project between the 
Oneida Nation and Menominee Indian Tribe features buffalo, beef, and 
apples from the Oneida Tribe, wild rice from the Fond du Lac 
Reservation, and whitefish and lake trout from the Red Cliff Band of 
Lake Superior Chippewa. These projects demonstrate that when the 
Department has the tools to support Tribal self-determination under 
FDPIR, Tribes can procure food locally, drive economic growth, and 
improve nutrition security by way of traditional foods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ https://www.fns.usda.gov/news-item/fns-0010.21
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Infrastructure
    Before working to expand new market access and Native product 
promotion, we must ensure that Tribal communities have the 
infrastructure they need to succeed. High-speed broadband, safe 
drinking water, sanitary wastewater systems and affordable access to 
healthcare all underpin the success of any initiatives to support 
economic growth in Tribal Nations. USDA is uniquely positioned to 
support these infrastructure needs. Rural Development operates more 
than forty programs--the vast majority of which are open to Tribal 
participation--to support rural America.
    The Grants for Rural and Native Alaskan Villages program helps 
remote Alaskan villages provide safe, reliable drinking water and waste 
disposal systems for households and businesses. The most recent round 
of ReConnect funding sets aside nearly a third of the funding for 
match-free grants for Tribes and Socially Vulnerable Communities to 
expand access to high-speed broadband--connecting hospitals to critical 
telehealth services, students to distance learning, and Tribal 
businesses to global markets for their products. Thanks to Congress and 
President Biden's transformational investments in infrastructure, we 
are one step closer to closing the digital divide for Tribal 
communities. USDA's rural development programs have not always been 
designed with Tribes in mind, which is why the Biden-Harris 
Administration is working to address barriers for Tribal communities 
and support the critical infrastructure that is required to foster 
meaningful economic growth.
Supply Chain & Capacity Building
    COVID-19 exposed serious risks in the United States' food supply 
chain--it is rigid, consolidated, and unable to adapt to quickly 
changing circumstances. These issues run much deeper in Tribal, Native 
Alaskan and Native Hawaiian communities. USDA published USDA Agri-Food 
Supply Chain Assessment: Program and Policy Options for Strengthening 
Resilience, \4\ which documents broadscale supply chain issues 
following COVID-19, including across Indian Country, and 
recommendations to addressing these problems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/
USDAAgriFoodSupplyChainReport.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Moreover, when considering policies to support economic development 
in Indian Country, expanding Tribal processing capacity presents new 
opportunities for producers to grow, process, and trade food locally, 
regionally and internationally. This work has additional meaning in 
Tribal communities, where agricultural economies have long been tied to 
traditional livestock and seafood management and production. 
Recognizing the unique position Tribes can hold in the expanding 
protein processing capacity, USDA recently hosted a Tribal consultation 
and listening session for Creating a Tribal Action Plan for Fairer 
Meat, Processing, and Seafood Processing, where over 200 Tribal Leaders 
and specialists across Indian Country shared their insights.
    Meat and poultry processing also presents a significant opportunity 
for economic development in Indian Country. We are hearing remarkable 
interest from Tribes in expanding processing capacity for livestock, 
poultry, and seafood. USDA is working to support this interest across 
the nation, but also specifically in Tribal communities.
    In January, the Department announced $1 billion in grants and other 
support from the American Rescue Plan to expand meat and poultry 
processing options, strengthen the food supply chain, and create jobs 
and economic opportunities in rural areas, including Tribal 
communities. USDA Rural Development will make available grants through 
the Meat and Poultry Processing Expansion Program to fund startup and 
expansion activities in the meat and poultry processing sector. USDA is 
also deploying the new Food Supply Chain Guaranteed Loan Program to 
back private investment in processing and food supply infrastructure 
that will strengthen the food supply chain.
    Tribal ranchers and processors have seen the value and the 
opportunities they work so hard to create move away from the 
communities where they live and operate, and this Administration is 
committed to making investments to support economic systems where the 
wealth created in rural and Tribal areas stays in those areas. USDA's 
vision of a food system is one that ensures producers receive a fair 
share of the food dollar, particularly in Tribal Nations, Native 
Alaskan and Native Hawaiian communities.
Procurement & Native Product Promotion
    As USDA works to expand processing capacity in Tribal communities 
and Native agricultural producers continue to expand their presence in 
food production, we continue to seek out ways to expand new markets for 
these producers. We are hearing Tribes express interest in producing 
and selling foods to be distributed and marketed domestically and 
internationally.
    USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service works closely with the Food 
and Nutrition Service's Food Distribution Division to determine what 
products to make available through FDPIR, and participates in regular 
Tribal Leaders Consultations with FNS. As part of the effort to 
purchase traditional foods, AMS has partnered with FNS and FDPIR 
representatives to purchase bison and blue cornmeal beginning in 2015, 
wild salmon filets and wild rice beginning in 2016, catfish filets 
beginning in 2018, beef beginning in 2018, and walleye filets beginning 
in 2021.
    At the White House Tribal Nations Summit, USDA announced a new 
venture with the Intertribal Agriculture Council to offer technical 
assistance, training, and agricultural development opportunities for 
Tribal Nations and Tribal producers to grow their domestic marketing 
opportunities. Under the Department's Indigenous Food Sovereignty 
Initiative, the Office of Tribal Relations is working with the IAC 
American Indian Foods \5\ program to certify at least ten new Native 
food enterprises as Agricultural Marketing Service vendors, which will 
enable them to bid in procurement solicitations to provide food across 
USDA feeding programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ https://www.indianag.org/americanindianfoods
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Since 2015, USDA's Foreign Agriculture Service and the Intertribal 
Agriculture Council partnered through the Market Access Program, 
awarding $6.1 million in promotion funding for $183 million in products 
exported. In 2020, Red Lake Nation Foods exhibited at Gulfood Show in 
Dubai at IAC's American Indian Foods pavilion which resulted in first-
time export sales. New markets for Native producers and processors 
allow them to bring business back home and keep resources in their 
communities.
Tribal Collaboration & Federal Coordination
    At USDA, we acknowledge we have not done enough to provide Tribal 
producers, businesses, families, and communities access to the tools 
that can ensure economic success and self-sufficiency. At the White 
House Tribal Nations Summit, Secretary Vilsack announced USDA's 
historic commitment to expanding Tribal self-determination. USDA is 
taking steps to internally review our statutory authorities across all 
agencies and programs to determine where improvements can be made in 
the ways we support self-determination.
    As we work to level the playing field and support Tribal 
sovereignty through our authorities, we also know that we do our best 
work when we coordinate with others. USDA recently announced and held 
the first meeting of an Equity Commission, which was created and funded 
by the American Rescue Plan and is charged with evaluating USDA 
programs and services and recommending how we can reduce hurdles to 
accessing them. Our Office of Tribal Relations coordinates 
consultations with Tribal leaders in a manner intended to make it 
easier to meaningfully engage with USDA. We will continue to consult 
with Tribal leaders, agriculture producers, businesses and community 
members to discuss the important role food and agriculture and USDA can 
play in the economic resiliency of their communities and the broader 
areas that surround these communities.
    We are working to improve coordination on Tribal issues across the 
federal government to deliver for Native communities. At the White 
House Tribal Nations Summit, the White House Office of Science and 
Technology Policy and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) also 
released a Memorandum for the Heads of Departments and Agencies 
regarding the incorporation of Indigenous Traditional Ecological 
Knowledge, \6\ referred to as ``ITEK'', in federal decisionmaking. ITEK 
is defined as a body of observations, oral and written knowledge, 
practices, and beliefs that promote environmental sustainability and 
the responsible stewardship of natural resources through relationships 
between humans and environmental systems. USDA has a history of 
incorporating ITEK into our work. To expand our commitments, our 
extramural research agency (the National Institute of Food and 
Agriculture) incorporated ITEK as a special highlight in research grant 
opportunities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/111521-
OSTP-CEQ-ITEK-Memo.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The importance of coordination also extends to USDA's partnership 
with Congress. Tribal Nations contribute to the economic output of many 
states, and each of you knows your constituents well. We rely on your 
input and feedback in our effort to build trusted partnerships with 
Tribal Nations.
Conclusion
    Tribal culture, economic growth, and food security are deeply 
rooted in agriculture, and so the Department of Agriculture shares an 
outsized responsibility to support our Tribal Nations, Alaska Natives 
and Native Hawaiians. USDA takes our responsibility seriously.
    Complicated problems require complicated solutions, but USDA is 
eager to be a partner in driving economic growth in Native communities. 
It is critical that USDA support Tribes in their efforts to restore and 
build food and economic sovereignty, and I look forward to working with 
this Committee to support this mission.

    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    Ms. Johns?

        STATEMENT OF WAHLEAH JOHNS, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF 
            INDIAN ENERGY POLICY AND PROGRAMS, U.S. 
                      DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

    Ms. Johns. Good afternoon, Chairman Schatz, Vice Chairman 
Murkowski and members of the Committee. My name is Wahleah 
Johns. I am a member of the Navajo Nation, or Dineh.
    It is my honor and privilege to serve at the Department of 
Energy as the Director of the Office of Indian Energy Policy 
and Programs. As the Director, I am responsible for upholding 
our trust responsibility and advancing the Office of Indian 
Energy statutory responsibilities to promote tribal energy 
development, efficiency and use, reduce or stabilize energy 
costs, enhance and strengthen tribal energy and economic 
infrastructure, and electrify Indian homes and lands.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify today regarding 
the Office of Indian Energy's efforts on tribal energy 
development, technical assistance, and access to markets.
    By statute, the Office of Indian Energy partners with 
federally recognized Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Village 
and Regional Corporations to develop the knowledge, skills, and 
resources needed to deploy clean energy solutions. The Office 
of Indian Energy uses a three-pronged approach to support 574 
federally recognized tribes, over 200 Alaska Native Village 
Corporations, and 13 Alaska Regional Corporations to harness 
their vast and undeveloped resources through, one, financial 
assistance, two, technical assistance, and three, education and 
outreach.
    Today, I will focus on the financial and technical 
assistance and the role that they play relative to accessing 
markets. Since 2010, the Office of Indian Energy has invested 
over $114 million in more than 200 tribal energy projects, 
resulting in more than 43 megawatts of new generation, more 
than 10 megawatt hours of new battery storage, providing 
electricity for over 8,600 tribal buildings across the Nation. 
These investments have saved over $13.7 million annually, and 
are estimated to save over $295 million over the lifetime of 
these systems, resulting in $3.46 saved for every DOE dollar 
invested.
    Additionally, for large scale projects, the Tribal Energy 
Loan Guarantee Program under DOE's loan programs office is 
authorized to provide up to $2 billion total in partial loan 
guarantees to support economic opportunities for American 
Indian and Alaska Native communities through energy development 
projects.
    The Office of Indian Energy also provides federally 
recognized Indian tribes and Alaska Native regional and village 
corporations, tribal energy development organization, and other 
organized tribal groups and communities with technical 
assistance to advance tribal energy projects. This technical 
assistance is provided at no cost by the technical experts from 
DOE's Office of Indian Energy, DOE's national laboratories, and 
other partnering organizations.
    Since 2010, the Office of Indian Energy has responded to 
397 technical assistance requests in 32 States. These types of 
technical assistance are generally categorized into three 
areas: one, technical analysis; two, financial analysis; and 
three, strategic energy planning, each catering to the specific 
needs of the community.
    A host of factors contribute to potential challenges for 
Indian tribes and Alaska Native regional and village 
Corporations in accessing energy markets, including existing 
energy infrastructure, transmission, and funding and financing. 
The Office of Indian Energy works to support, develop, and 
strengthen the capacity that is needed to enter into energy 
markets.
    For many of these communities, financing and funding 
projects is particularly challenging. But the solution is not 
uniform. American Indian and Alaska Native communities each 
have varying human and financial capacities for energy 
development.
    As such, the Office of Indian Energy strives to provide 
services to meet the diverse needs of these communities, 
regardless of financial situation, geographic location or 
demographic circumstances.
    In conclusion, many Native people today live without 
electricity, energy that is essential to provide Native people 
with light for their children to study by, refrigeration to 
keep food and medicine cold, heat to warm them, and energy to 
help their communities grow. These realities and unmet needs 
are not congruent with the vast untapped energy resources that 
exist on Native lands.
    Annually and cumulatively, there is a growing unmet need 
for project grant funding and technical expertise to address 
the wide range of challenges to energy development in these 
communities. There is a stark increase in education needs and 
outreach participation and the need for building internal 
capacity.
    On behalf of the Office of Indian Energy, I thank you again 
for this opportunity to testify before you today, and 
appreciate the ongoing bipartisan support for the development 
of energy resources in Native communities.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Johns follows:]

Prepared Statement of Wahleah Johns, Director, Office of Indian Energy 
             Policy and Programs, U.S. Department of Energy
    Good afternoon, Chairman Schatz, Vice Chairman Murkowski and 
Members of the Committee. My name is Wahleah Johns, a member of the 
Navajo Nation or Dine. It is my honor and privilege to serve at the 
Department of Energy (DOE or the Department), as the Director of the 
Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs (Office of Indian Energy). 
As Director, I am responsible for upholding our trust responsibilities 
and advancing the Office of Indian Energy's statutory responsibilities 
to promote tribal energy development, efficiency, and use, reduce or 
stabilize energy costs, enhance and strengthen tribal energy and 
economic infrastructure, and electrify Indian lands and homes.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify today regarding tribal 
energy development, technical assistance, and access to markets. I am 
pleased to be able highlight the work that the Office of Indian Energy 
carries out related to these issues and how the Administration's goals 
will strengthen these initiatives.
The Office of Indian Energy's Mission
    By statute, the Office of Indian Energy partners with federally 
recognized Indian tribes and Alaska Native Village and Regional 
Corporations to develop the knowledge, skills, and resources needed to 
deploy clean energy solutions. The Office of Indian Energy uses a 
three-pronged approach to support 574 federally recognized tribes, over 
200 Alaska Native Village Corporations, and 13 Alaska Native Regional 
Corporations, harness their vast and undeveloped resources through: (1) 
financial assistance; (2), technical assistance; and, (3) education and 
capacity building. Today, I will focus on financial assistance, 
technical assistance, and the role they play relative to accessing 
markets.
Financial Assistance
    Since 2010, the Office of Indian Energy has invested over $114 
million in more than 200 tribal energy projects. While these projects 
include energy planning, feasibility studies, and project development, 
the Office of Indian Energy emphasizes tribal energy deployment 
projects, projects that install hardware, and which make an immediate 
and tangible impact in Native communities.
    Specifically, those deployment project investments have resulted in 
more than 43 MW of new generation, and more than 10 MWh of new battery 
storage, providing electricity to over 8,600 tribal buildings across 
the Nation. These investments have saved over $13.7 million annually 
and are estimated to save over $295 million over the life of these 
systems, resulting in $3.46 saved for every DOE dollar invested.
    Additionally, for larger scale projects, the Tribal Energy Loan 
Guarantee Program (TELGP) under DOE's Loan Programs Office is 
authorized to provide up to $2 billion total in partial loan guarantees 
to support economic opportunities for American Indian and Alaska Native 
communities through energy development projects.
Technical Assistance
    The Office of Indian Energy also provides federally recognized 
Indian tribes and Alaska Native Regional and Villages Corporations, 
tribal energy development organizations, and other organized tribal 
groups and communities, with technical assistance to advance tribal 
energy projects. This technical assistance is provided at no cost by 
the technical experts from DOE's Office of Indian Energy, DOE's 
national laboratories, and other partnering organizations.
    The goal of this technical assistance is to address a specific 
challenge or fulfill a need that is essential to a specific project's 
successful implementation. The intended result is a tangible product or 
specific deliverable designed to help move a project forward.
    Since 2010, the Office of Indian Energy has responded to 397 
technical assistance requests in 32 States. The types of technical 
assistance are generally categorized into three areas: 1) technical 
analysis; 2) financial analysis; and, 3) strategic energy planning, 
with each catering to the specific needs of the community.
Access to markets
    A host of factors contribute to potential challenges for Indian 
tribes and Alaska Native Regional and Village Corporations in accessing 
energy markets, including existing energy infrastructure, transmission, 
and funding and financing. The Office of Indian Energy works to 
support, develop, and strengthen the capacity that is needed to enter 
into energy markets. Working with these communities to support their 
energy visions, it is clear that many challenges exist particularly 
related to financing and funding projects.
    Addressing these challenges is not uniform among communities. 
American Indian and Alaska Native communities each have varying human 
and financial capacities for energy development. As such, the Office of 
Indian Energy strives to provide services to meet the diverse needs of 
these communities, regardless of financial situation, geographic 
location or demographic circumstances. For example, strategic energy 
planning assistance is often a way communities engage with our office. 
Knowing the financial, technical, and legal ramifications can be 
critical for a community that is considering energy development. Other 
communities may be considering large scale energy development and have 
more specific requests from our network of experts.
    Further, the newly signed Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act 
(IIJA also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law) will better 
position DOE to address the climate and environmental needs of the 
American people. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law makes a historic 
investment in infrastructure -more than $62 billion for DOE to deliver 
a more equitable clean energy future -which will help correct the 
unacceptable fact that many in Indian Country still don't have access 
to reliable, affordable electricity. For example, funds were made 
available specifically to Indian tribes for energy efficiency and 
conservation and preventing outages and enhancing resilience of the 
electric grid, Lastly, this historic investment in supply chains and 
clean energy demonstration projects will create jobs and economic 
opportunity for all Americans, including American Indian and Alaska 
Native communities.
    The Administration and DOE's push to promote zero carbon projects 
to combat the climate crisis will create new investment, new jobs and 
stronger communities, and we're making sure that American Indian and 
Alaska Native communities are in the forefront of this effort.
    This is why the Office of Indian Energy is investing in clean 
energy projects Native communities, projects that create jobs and boost 
energy independence and resilience.
Conclusion
    In conclusion, many Native people today still live without 
electricity, or are dependent on fossil fuels for their energy needs--
energy that is essential to provide Native people with light for their 
children to study by, refrigeration to keep food and medicine cold, 
heat to keep them warm, and energy to help their communities grow.
    These realities and unmet needs are not congruent with the vast 
untapped energy resources that exist on Native lands. Tellingly, 
American Indian and Alaska Native communities' interest and action in 
developing these resources have increased in recent decades. Like many 
communities in the United States, Native communities are working 
towards strengthening their economies and increasing their well-being 
and energy development is a foundational element to achieving these 
goals.
    We know the demand is there. DOE's Office of Indian Energy's 
investments continue to be utilized by American Indian and Alaska 
Native communities. Annually and cumulatively, there is growing unmet 
need for project grant funding and technical expertise to address the 
wide range of challenges to energy development in these communities. 
There is also a stark increase in education needs and outreach 
participation and the need for building internal capacity.
    The Office of Indian Energy's initiatives are guided by statute and 
informed by tribal input, that is so essential to building and 
maintaining Nation-to-Nation relationships. Feedback is received 
through consultation, listening sessions, workshops, research, from 
this Committee, and recommendations from the Indian Country Energy and 
Infrastructure Working Group (ICEIWG). This feedback is vital to 
ensuring that the direction of the DOE Office of Indian Energy 
addresses the present day needs and realities of American Indian and 
Alaska Native communities. Therefore, the Office of Indian Energy must 
be receptive, adaptive, and forward thinking to best prepare to meet 
the evolving needs of these communities.
    We want to create more opportunity for dialogue about how Indian 
tribes, Alaska Native Corporations, and Native communities can lead the 
way to a clean, secure, and reliable energy future. We are striving to 
ensure that matters associated with broadband, transportation, water 
and energy in American Indian and Alaska Native communities are also 
highlighted and addressed.
    On behalf of DOE's Office of Indian Energy, thank you again for the 
opportunity to testify before you today. I appreciate the ongoing 
bipartisan support for the development of energy resources in Native 
communities.
    I welcome your questions.

    The Chairman. Thank you to all of the witnesses. I will now 
turn to the Vice Chair for an opening statement, followed by 
her questions.

               STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, 
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA

    Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for 
being a few minutes late.
    Before I begin my opening and then go into the questions, I 
just want to acknowledge that today has been a pretty good day 
in terms of advancing good legislation for Native people 
everywhere, particularly our vulnerable women and children. 
With the ceremony that was at the White House today that you 
and I were able to be at with our staffs, I think it is a 
recognition of the good work from this Committee that this 
tribal title was a significant part of VAWA.
    I want to give public credit to your team, led by Jennifer, 
and to our team, led by Amber and Lucy, working on the VAWA 
side. It was significant, and again, worthy of celebration. 
Thank you for that.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much, Vice Chair. I said 
something similar, not as eloquently, earlier. But I will just 
note that in that room, the thing that caused the whole crowd 
to erupt and goose bumps up and down my spine and neck was when 
President Biden talked about the provisions that we all 
collectively authored. And I mean that in the most collective 
sense. This was a real accomplishment for Native people across 
the Country. You could feel it in that room. So thank you for 
your leadership as well.
    Senator Murkowski. No, a good team partnership. Thank you.
    So this is a good hearing, also. This is more opportunity 
to focus on some of the progress that has been made, looking at 
the state of Native economies, what we can do to support buying 
Native American. I think we have seen some good economic growth 
in the last few decades. I am very proud, particularly in 
Alaska, of the progress that some of our tribal entrepreneurs 
and Alaska Native Corporation leaders have made in growing not 
only Alaska's economy but the American economy.
    In Alaska, nine of the top ten companies are ANCs, Alaska 
Native Corporations. They have succeeded economically while 
still upholding Native values, which is absolutely key.
    But I think we know that this economic prosperity is not 
even across Indian Country. There are still many barriers, and 
the opportunity for us to discuss those barriers and figure out 
how we move beyond them is why we are here. But the barriers 
are everything from lack of access to capital, supporting 
infrastructure, and markets. In order to see continued economic 
improvements in Native communities, the role that we have here 
is to step up and work with Native businesses to break down the 
barriers.
    So I think this hearing is particularly timely, given that 
the omnibus was just signed yesterday, the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure bill was just recently signed by the President. 
We had our Energy Act of 2020 that is now law. All of these are 
significant pieces in supporting sustainable tribal economic 
development and growing Native businesses.
    So we are looking forward to many of the advantages that we 
are going to be seeing from the Infrastructure Bill, whether it 
is the broadband, the water and wastewater, there is just so 
much there.
    But I think as we are learning, passing the law is the 
first step, it is the implementation and making sure that 
American Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian businesses and 
communities are treated as partners as we move forward is going 
to be important. So I am glad that we have the Administration 
witnesses with us today. I hope that you will have an 
opportunity to hear from those who are part of the second 
panel, again, for their input.
    Just before I turn to my questions, let me make a little 
bit of a comment about energy. According to the Energy 
Information Agency, rural residents and villages in Alaska pay 
exponentially higher rates for electricity, with some rates 
reaching over $1 a kilowatt hour, or about 800 percent higher 
than the national average.
    I will share with you, there is a great deal of concern 
right now in many, many, many of the villages around the State 
of Alaska. Their fuel supplies come twice a year. They come by 
barge. They come with a spring barge, and they come with a fall 
barge. So the prices are set when that fuel is purchased at 
that point in the season.
    Right now, the villages haven't been impacted by the 
increasing price of fuel. It has with the cost of goods and 
airplane travel, but it hasn't translated to what they are 
paying when they go to get fuel for their snow machine, four-
wheeler, and soon to be boats. But when that spring barge 
comes, they are locking in fuel at the prices that we are 
seeing today, which we all know are just gut-wrenching.
    So the prices that I am speaking to, the rates that people 
are paying per kilowatt hour, you add on that the now higher 
price of fuel, and even if things should settle down, they are 
still locked into that fuel until the next barge comes. So that 
is the reality of so many of the communities in rural Alaska.
    We do have some great news stories, though, and we are 
going to be able to hear from Gary Hennigh on the second panel 
out of King Cove. King Cove actually has had good news today, 
because we got some good news out of the Ninth Circuit today, 
which is great. Gary is going to talk to us about the 
community's hydroelectric projects that have enabled this 
primarily Aleut community to bring their energy costs down, to 
largely get off diesel. We are all looking for ways to reduce 
our emissions, deal with climate change. Well, you have to get 
off diesel power generation first.
    So it is innovations and initiatives like the projects that 
we are seeing in King Cove that recognize the importance of 
valuing a local community's input in the planning and the 
administration of their natural resources. I think King Cove 
serves as a great example to our Federal witnesses of the 
important role that local input plays in decisions regarding 
involving natural resource management and enabling the 
communities to implement their own energy visions.
    Senator Murkowski. Ms. Johns, let me stick with you for 
just a moment here, since I am talking about energy. We have 
mentioned that we were able to amend the Energy Policy Act Loan 
Guarantee Program as part of the omnibus to eliminate this 
barrier to its use, allow applicants to receive direct funding 
from the Federal Financing Bank and Treasury. This should 
hopefully open up capital, lower interest rates for energy 
projects. People are looking forward to that.
    But where there is a concern is, all right, you have this 
big bureaucracy back here in Washington, D.C. You say you have 
removed these barriers. Can you tell me how or if your office 
works with DOE's loan programs to ensure that tribal producers 
that are interested in developing energy on their lands don't 
get lost in this kind of back and forth departmental shuffle?
    Ms. Johns. Thank you for your question, Senator Murkowski. 
It is a great question, because with LPO, our Loan Programs 
Office at Department of Energy, we work closely on coordinating 
efforts with tribes and doing outreach. Our office has a lot of 
connections with tribes.
    I am excited about this new language in the bill that will 
allow direct loans for tribes to apply for. We have identified 
the barriers, we held a listening session last May, both LPO 
and our office, around some of the challenges that Indian 
tribes are facing, but also ANCs. This could unlock a lot of 
potential.
    Senator Murkowski. Are you working with the DOE Loan 
Program as well?
    Ms. Johns. Yes.
    Senator Murkowski. Okay, good.
    Let me turn to you, Ms. Simms Hipp. I appreciate your 
comments about the food security initiatives. A couple of 
questions for you. The 2018 Farm Bill extends 638 contracting 
authority under ISDEA to USDA through a couple of demonstration 
projects. The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium was 
selected as one of the participants for this pilot, which we 
think is great.
    The first thing that they did was to replace farm-raised 
catfish. We don't grow catfish. We don't raise catfish in 
Alaska. The catfish was flown to Alaska from across the Country 
and placed as part of these food baskets, food packages, if you 
will. So the first thing, that is crazy. We have some of the 
best fish here. So what they did is they replaced it with 
Alaskan halibut that is harvested and processed by Sun'aq 
Tribal Enterprise. Fabulous. Makes total sense.
    What doesn't make total sense is we are told that ANTHC is 
only authorized to supplant items within the food packages. So 
what they have said to us is if they have more authority to 
include in these food packages things that make sense from 
within the region, they can select more goods, Alaskan goods 
from tribal vendors.
    So is this accurate, that they don't have the flexibility 
to really make these food packages not only more local, support 
the local vendors? But also, for heaven's sake, if we are 
worried about emissions, why are we flying catfish from 
somewhere in the south to people who have some of the finest 
wild sources of protein in the world?
    Can you tell me, if we do have some flexibility, and if we 
don't, what more we can do to get it?
    Ms. Simms Hipp. I am very happy that you brought that 
program up. It is one of, I believe one of the most important 
things that this Committee was able to influence in the last 
Farm Bill. The 638 authority that was pushed into the Food and 
Nutrition Service, with regard to the food distribution program 
that you mentioned, has been able to actually put funding 
toward all of the projects that applied for the funding at the 
tribal level. All eight were funded.
    What we are seeing now is exactly what you pointed out. We 
are seeing the places where we can be informed by exactly the 
foods that are around the tribes that are actually using that 
program and how it can inform the changes that we can make 
internally that would adjust for them.
    Senator Murkowski. So do you think you have the 
flexibility?
    Ms. Simms Hipp. I believe that we have some flexibility. 
But I believe it to be a very complicated flexibility.
    Senator Murkowski. Would you just commit to work with us on 
this?
    Ms. Simms Hipp. Yes.
    Senator Murkowski. We want to make it work. But it doesn't 
make sense if what we are trying to do is build up tribal 
empowerment here, help local economies deal with food security, 
and oh, by the way, reduce our emissions. It seems to me that 
we just need to be communicating a little bit better. I would 
like to think that you would be willing to work with us on 
that.
    Ms. Simms Hipp. Absolutely.
    Senator Murkowski. Mr. Chairman, I know we have limited 
time. I have more questions, but let's turn back over to you, 
please.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Vice Chair.
    Just before I get started, to put a fine point on it, you 
are going to fix this, aren't you?
    Ms. Simms Hipp. I am going to do my best.
    The Chairman. All right, that is good enough for me.
    Mr. Garriott, Native businesses across several industries 
cite BIA's agricultural leasing issues, limits on duration and 
highest bidder requirements, as impediments. I understand you 
are working on updating regulations. What are you doing? What 
is the status here? I have about seven questions I want to do 
in five minutes, just for context.
    Mr. Garriott. I will be quick. First, we understand and 
have heard many times that there are a number of impediments, 
barriers, in the ag leasing area. We have not started the 
process to begin amending those regulations. It is something 
that we want to do, though.
    It is important to understand that we are also looking, 
under the current regs, we are also looking at current 
barriers. For example, on ag leasing, we or a tribe can go up 
to 10 years with our ag leasing. However, written into the law, 
it requires us to do a reassessment or a reevaluation of the 
value of that land at the five-year mark. There are some 
internal barriers to that with around appraisals and land 
valuation. That is something we are committed to looking at and 
to addressing in the short term while we take a longer term, 
and when I am talking longer term, I am talking within the next 
year, at looking at our Indian ag leases.
    One of the really exciting developments that is really 
important and a tool for tribes is the HEARTH Act, which allows 
and recognizes tribes to develop and set their own leasing 
regulations, including ag leasing. So the more tribes that are 
able to take control over their own regulatory powers the more 
they will be able to streamline ag leases and many other kinds 
of leases.
    The Chairman. That is great. So it sounds like some of this 
may be through a rulemaking, some of it, maybe you have some 
internal flexibility, and then I presume some of it may be 
statutory. But let's work it all out and come up with a plan 
going forward to get you the flexibility you need. Then for the 
Department also to show flexibility.
    Mr. Garriott. Yes.
    The Chairman. Ms. Simms Hipp, on 638, how scalable is the 
program? Can we make this work on a broader basis?
    Ms. Simms Hipp. I think the limitations on scalability at 
this point are limitations on budget.
    The Chairman. It is money.
    Ms. Simms Hipp. It is money.
    The Chairman. It is scalable with money?
    Ms. Simms Hipp. It is scalable.
    The Chairman. It is not without it. Fair enough.
    Ms. Johns, just for the record, how many people in Indian 
Country lack electricity?
    Ms. Johns. Right now, we are doing a study that is on 
energy access and reliability. It is a Congressional report 
that will be made available by this summer. It is estimated 
20,000 to 30,000 Native American homes do not have access to 
electricity today.
    The Chairman. Thank you. That is an abomination. That is 
something that we collectively have to fix over time.
    Mr. Garriott, tribes note that energy development projects 
are often delayed because they need secretarial approval for 
rights of way. Do you have enough autonomy, do you have enough 
statutory authority to fix that? Or do we need a new law?
    Mr. Garriott. One of the things we have heard from tribes 
and from others is that expanded recognition of tribal 
authority within the HEART Act would go a long way. Right now 
that includes leases, but does not include rights-of-way.
    The Chairman. And it is extraordinarily difficult to do an 
energy project without right-of-way.
    Mr. Garriott. Yes. Very. One of the things I would 
highlight, though, is again, today we did announce the first 
tribal energy development organization categorization, which 
allows an entity that is majority owned by a tribe to work 
directly with a tribe. And then the tribe has the authority to 
expedite leases and rights-of-way.
    So it is an additional authority that we are utilizing 
right now within our current law. But again, getting back to 
the first part of the question, expanded authority would be 
helpful to many tribes.
    The Chairman. A final question before Senator Hoeven. DOE 
has a policy establishing a purchasing preference for tribal 
energy. Ms. Johns, is that policy being implemented?
    Ms. Johns. Not that I know of, it is not.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Hoeven?

                STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN HOEVEN, 
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA

    Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Garriott, last Congress, I sponsored legislation, the 
Indian Community Economic Enhancement Act. The idea was to get 
better coordination between Interior, Commerce, and Treasury. 
Can you give me an update on implementation of that 
legislation?
    Mr. Garriott. Absolutely, and thank you for the question. 
With regard to the provisions generally, it had a lot to do 
with Commerce, and I am unable to speak directly to the 
activities of Commerce. However, with regard to the 
requirements, activities under Department of Interior, I 
believe that we are fulfilling those.
    One, the Act requires us to coordinate with the Department 
of Health and Human Services around, it doesn't explicitly call 
it the Buy Indian Act acquisitions, but basically it directs us 
to look at ways to purchase goods and services and to work with 
tribal businesses. We do that, we have regular communication 
around implementation of the Buy Indian Act. It is also 
something that, also within the Enhancement Act, it asks us to 
do consultation in a number of areas. We are hoping, planning 
to release our updated Buy Indian Act regs by the end of the 
spring. In order to develop those, we engaged in consultation 
on the development of those.
    Also, there are certain provisions around financing. The 
Indian Loan Guarantee Program administered by the Office of 
Indian Economic Development also has engaged in consultations 
in the last several years on how to improve its programs and 
services to help drive more capital to Indian Country. As a 
result of that, we have begun to take certain steps to help 
improve our program.
    Finally, there is a lot of interagency coordination that 
happens, not only amongst our agencies represented here, but 
across the entire Federal Government, which includes Commerce 
and HHS and SBA and others, around interagency coordination 
with regard to Native American policy.
    The White House Council on Native Americans is chaired by 
the Secretary and co-chaired by the Director of White House 
DPC, and is kind of split up into a number of different kind of 
subgroups, one of which is economic development and 
infrastructure. Through that committee, we meet on a monthly 
basis to coordinate and share information about how we can 
improve awareness of our various programs and resources, 
address issues of access, are there barriers that we need to be 
looking at, either internally or across the Federal Government, 
and then finally starting to take a look at utilization, who is 
using this, how can we improve it, and those kinds of 
questions.
    Senator Hoeven. Thank you.
    Ms. Simms Hipp, in the Farm Bill, we included a tribal 
self-determination procurement demonstration project. Can you 
update me on the status of that, about getting traditional 
foods involved?
    Ms. Simms Hipp. Yes, sir. We have implemented that 
provision in the food distribution program. I think the Vice 
Chairwoman mentioned that as well in her question.
    Senator Hoeven. She did. Surprisingly, she mentioned Alaska 
fish. That doesn't happen very often.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Hoeven. Or maybe it does.
    Ms. Simms Hipp. Well, all eight applicants for the program 
were all funded. And they all have it underway.
    Senator Hoeven. It really is a good idea.
    Ms. Simms Hipp. Yes.
    Senator Hoeven. We just need to keep promoting it, Alaska 
salmon and halibut, and all the great fish there. That is a 
great example. We can go around the Country.
    Ms. Simms Hipp. Exactly.
    Senator Hoeven. Anything and everything you do, that is 
just a really good concept, I think. I am very supportive of 
it.
    Then Ms. Johns, we also passed another bill. I sponsored 
the Indian Tribal Energy Development Self-Determination Act, to 
try to give tribes a boost in terms of developing energy 
resources they want to on their reservation. Do you want to 
give me an update on that?
    Ms. Johns. Yes. Our statute has been supporting, at the 
request of tribes, technical assistance, financial assistance. 
We offer financial assistance opportunities. So really 
supporting their energy needs. This is part of our trust 
responsibility to tribes and Alaska Native Villages 
Corporations.
    So we do have a strong commitment to supporting tribes to 
be self-reliant in their energy generation, to be able to look 
at the opportunity to sell power and electricity. So anywhere 
from strategic energy planning to technical assistance and 
support. We have a good team that is working really hard to 
make sure that we support tribes to get to a place of self-
reliance and self-determination. Also really it is a big part 
of our mission, supporting tribes.
    Senator Hoeven. Good. Thank you. Thanks to all three of 
you.
    The Chairman. Senator Cortez Masto.

           STATEMENT OF HON. CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, 
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA

    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to 
the Ranking Member. I so appreciate this panel discussion 
today.
    Ms. Johns, let me start with you and follow up on some of 
the questioning that I have heard. I was proud to fight for 
changes in the Fiscal Year 2022 appropriations bill that we 
just passed that provided the Tribal Energy Loan Guarantee 
Program with access to use direct loans through the Federal 
Financing Bank, which we all hope will expand access to the 
program, which has historically not achieved its mission.
    One of the things I have heard from our tribes is about the 
onerous application process. Are there any changes in the 
pipeline to address and streamline possibly the application 
process for the Tribal Energy Loan Guarantee Program? Just 
curious if you are hearing the same concerns.
    Ms. Johns. Yes, thank you, Senator, for that question. 
Since May of last year, we held a listening session, a 
roundtable discussion with tribal leaders around our funding 
opportunity that we have at the Office of Indian Energy, and 
also the loan program's office, Tribal Energy Loan Guarantee 
Program, to get input on what are the challenges and barriers.
    We have been working, since May we have been working on 
helping to streamline the process, the application, but also 
the outreach and engagement is really key, and making sure that 
we support tribe to submit successful applications. Now that we 
have this new bill that has been passed yesterday, giving 
direct loans, being able to give direct loans to tribal 
projects is a game changer. I appreciate all of you that 
supported this effort. This is really going to be helpful for a 
lot of tribal projects that are out there that want to continue 
to grow.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. I appreciate that. I look 
forward to the good work that you are going to do on behalf of 
our tribes.
    Let me ask you this. In the Indian Energy Grant Program, we 
saw a $36 million increase this fiscal year, from Fiscal Year 
2021 to Fiscal Year 2022. Does the Department have plans for 
this new funding? I am curious, with the additional increase 
here, thoughts on how you are going to address the needs of the 
Indian Energy Grant Program.
    Ms. Johns. Thank you again, to the Committee, and leaders 
that have supported the Office of Indian Energy. With this 
increase, our vision is to support tribes that are in this 
transition moment. Taking advantage of this clean energy 
economy will provide jobs and many benefits. Also addressing 
energy access is a priority for us.
    Through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, there is so much 
opportunity for tribes to be able to carry out their energy 
vision. We are in good coordination with all the offices and 
programs within the Department of Energy, but also my 
colleagues here in the other agencies, how does energy fit in 
with water, how does energy fit in with housing, agriculture, 
then also the rights-of-way. So there is a lot of coordination, 
interagency coordination, that is happening through the White 
House Council on Native American Affairs.
    We are really excited about this opportunity to demonstrate 
also the unmet need that tribes have today when it comes to 
being able to finance these projects and fund these really 
amazing projects that contribute to the climate resiliency that 
is needed in these really remote rural areas as well. I am 
looking forward to working with you. Thank you.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. I couldn't agree more 
about the need for the coordination amongst the various 
agencies. It is one of the reasons that I pushed for the Rural 
Interagency Council in the 2018 Farm Bill. We saw cooperation 
across the many Federal governmental agencies. I see it in my 
State, because we have to interact at a Federal level with all 
the various agencies.
    So let me ask you, Ms. Simms Hipp, are you seeing more of 
this communication, I hope, happening across Federal agencies 
in order to really maximize the investments that we are making 
now, and making sure that our tribes and our rural communities 
are receiving the assistance that they need as well?
    Ms. Simms Hipp. I believe we are. I always believe we can 
do more. My colleagues here at the table hear me go on about 
that quite a lot.
    Let me give you an example. The agricultural piece that Mr. 
Garriott talked about in terms of the agricultural leasing that 
could unlock a new way of thinking about how we support Native 
agriculture. We have already been in touch with his office 
because it is going to be very, very important for the various 
agencies at USDA that support agriculture production to be at 
the table when you are thinking about agricultural leasing. 
Because the crossover and the bridge between our program 
authorities, our loan authorities, our technical assistance 
authorities that sit up underneath, Native agriculturists, it 
is really critical that we are along for the ride from day one, 
and that we actually do it on concert.
    So the ideas and the opportunities around interdepartmental 
coordination, I quite frankly have never been more excited 
about where we are now. Because I think we know that we must do 
a better job of listening to tribes, listening to Native 
producers, but also doing the deep coordination we need to do 
across these bridges. But we will see areas where you all will 
need to lean in to help us, in my opinion.
    Let me give you an example. Several years ago--Mr. Garriott 
mentioned appraisals. What we found several Farm Bills ago is 
that we actually needed a legislative fix because we had two 
different appraisal systems that were required, one at the 
Department of Interior, one at the Department of Agriculture. 
We were able to, with your help, get that fixed.
    So I do think that we are really at an important moment to 
put legs up underneath tribal governments, Indian people, all 
over the Country to really grab hold of this moment and build 
some incredible economies for their communities. But it is 
going to take us all being in it together and finding those 
places that are deep in the weeds and trying to do our best to 
fix them internally or be in conversation with you all to help 
make that happen.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Smith?

                 STATEMENT OF HON. TINA SMITH, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA

    Senator Smith. Thank you, Chair Schatz. Thank you so much 
for this Committee hearing. It is quite interesting.
    Chair Schatz, I need to go preside over the United States 
Senate in about 10 minutes. So I am going to maybe ask one 
question, but I am glad to be able to be a part of this.
    I am going to ask a question around food sovereignty. Ms. 
Simms Hipp, I will direct this to you. There is significant 
interest amongst Minnesota around the issue of food 
sovereignty. That interest has motivated me to work on 
legislation with Senator Rounds which would allow tribes to 
administer the SNAP program through self-governance contracts.
    So it is interesting to me how that value around this food 
sovereignty, how it meshes with the other value that we are 
talking about today, which is around Buy Native American, and 
how those two things can work together. Ms. Simms Hipp, I am 
going to ask you to talk about that a little bit. Tribes that 
are able to lift up their indigenous food sources benefit their 
members' health, their tribal economies, so many things.
    Could you just talk about, tell us a little bit about how 
the Federal Government can bolster Buy Native American 
initiatives to the benefit of tribal food sovereignty and how 
those two things work together?
    Ms. Simms Hipp. Thank you, Senator. I will be very happy to 
do that.
    One of the things you have already done, which was to 
actually put in place 638 authority on a demonstration level 
around the food distribution program. But that is to me just 
the beginning. Because there are so many other opportunities 
that we have seen within USDA where we could more tightly work 
with Native producers, tribal governments, to really accomplish 
their goals of bringing more of their products to market.
    Some of those markets could actually be at USDA, because a 
lot of agencies, departments around the Federal Government 
purchase food. We purchase a lot of food, but so does the 
Defense Department. So do a lot of other departments. Really 
unpacking those opportunities is very important.
    But I will tell you that USDA does not have Native 
preference in procurement. We do not have that authority. So 
unless you identify that within your own efforts, to make 
changes in our ability to kind of meet the moment, then we can 
take it internally as far as we can. But then there will be 
that final bridge that we will need some help to cross.
    So there are many, many opportunities that tribes across 
the U.S., lower 48, Alaska, Native Hawaiians, have in this 
space of food sovereignty. But really meeting the moment of 
meeting the nutritional needs of their people but also really 
encouraging the continued presence of our traditional foods 
within our communities, which is terribly important. But also 
the agricultural-economic opportunities for diversifying Native 
economies across the Country in food.
    We already know that $3.5 billion annually is accounted for 
in Native food production. But USDA has a long history of 
actually understanding that that is probably an undercount. We 
can do more to actually unpack that and really support it more 
fully. We are looking at every single nook and cranny at USDA 
to bring that technical assistance to bear so that tribes can 
actually accomplish these really important missions of food 
sovereignty.
    Senator Smith. I would love to help you look in every nook 
and cranny and help to also make sure that the USDA has all the 
authorities that it needs. I think this is an area where there 
is so much opportunity. Food is culture. Food is health. Food 
is economic development. To bring those things together feels 
to me, and I have learned from Minnesota tribes is incredibly 
empowering in so many ways. So this is an area that is ripe, I 
think, for opportunity.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    The Chairman. Senator Daines.

                STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE DAINES, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA

    Senator Daines. Chairman Schatz, thank you, Vice Chairman 
Murkowski as well, for holding this hearing on growing Native 
businesses. I do want to thank Lexie Holden from Billings, 
Montana for joining us virtually today on the second panel.
    As we look around the Country, we certainly see the price 
of energy going up. Gas prices, heating bills increasing, 
straining the budgets of so many Montana families. We are in 
the midst of what is now becoming an energy catastrophe. It is 
time that we unleash made in American energy. That includes 
expanding Native American energy.
    Across our State in Montana, we have many tribes producing 
energy. The CSKT, they are producing hydropower. The Crow, 
producing coal. Fort Peck, producing oil. All these tribes 
deserve the right to choose which energy portfolio works best 
for their people.
    This is about creating a thriving community with very good, 
high paying jobs for tribes in Montana. Having met this past 
weekend, when I was back home in Montana, with one tribal 
president and another tribal chairman, over and over I hear the 
complaint, they don't want to see Washington bureaucracies and 
bureaucrats stifling tribal self-determination and sovereignty.
    Director Johns, do you agree that tribes should decide what 
form of energy they produce, use, and invest in?
    Ms. Johns. Thank you for that question. Yes, we support 
tribes to pursue whatever their energy needs and vision is. 
That has been the mission of our office and the self-
determination and whatever they want to choose, we have been 
supportive with technical assistance and financial assistance, 
education and outreach.
    Senator Daines. Thank you. It seems with what is going on 
both in our Country and around the world that we should be 
looking to be additive in our thinking on energy portfolios, 
not necessary replacing one for the other. There are other ways 
to let the markets decide the choices, and let tribe decide 
what they want to produce.
    What communications has DOE and BIA had to ensure that the 
government streamlines what is a very bureaucratic process to 
ensure that tribes can use infrastructure dollars in a timely 
manner?
    Ms. Johns. That is a great question. We coordinate a lot 
with the Department of Interior, the Division of Energy, 
Minerals Division and also the service center there, and 
through the White House Council on Native American Affairs, we 
also have an MOU with them as well. Energy is one of the 
subcommittees. We have a biweekly meeting and we have discussed 
how we can better collaborate and coordinate to support tribes 
and meeting them where they are.
    Usually for our office, we offer technical assistance at no 
cost. So a tribe can make the request, and we will get them 
information that they need around a project or something to 
research. If it is out of our scope, we will either send it to 
another agency or we have lab partners that we can direct some 
of those requests to do a study.
    So yes, we are here to help tribes in pursuing their energy 
vision, which is really important in understanding that tribes 
and Alaska Native Villages and Corporations, we have a trust 
responsibility to them in supporting what they would like to 
do. I just want to say that that is definitely something we 
honor.
    Senator Daines. Thank you. Thanks for the thoughtful 
answer.
    I want to shift gears and talk about infrastructure, 
because we have seen in Indian Country many hurdles that have 
been placed on it by some of these burdensome Federal policies. 
If you want to see a prime example of why we need a more 
streamlined Federal Government, why we need a leaner Federal 
Government, a more efficient Federal Government, a more 
compassionate Federal Government, just look at our tribes.
    The Federal Government has created a regulatory system so 
complicated that most lenders are not willing to extend credit 
to Native businesses. When they do it, it is at substantially 
higher repayment terms.
    Issues of recordkeeping, unique requirements for Indian 
Country, make it challenging to purchase land, to lease 
buildings for creating new businesses, is yet another 
extraordinary hurdle that has to be overcome that has chilling 
effects with potential investors. I believe the Federal 
Government needs to get out of the way so tribes can seek 
investors and partners more quickly and efficiently to improve 
their infrastructure and create economic growth, which results 
in good jobs.
    An additional major hurdle is access to basic 
infrastructure. Tribes need more roads, more power lines, 
better access to markets.
    Director Johns, it would be great to have whatever energy 
tribes want to produce per the earlier line of questions, but 
if they can't get it to the grid for use, it really doesn't 
matter. It won't have the impact we want to see.
    What is DOE doing to help facilitate upgrades and expansion 
of power lines in and around Indian Country?
    Ms. Johns. Thank you for that question. Actually, 
personally I come from, I live next to a coal-mining operation. 
We live about nine miles from the nearest transmission line. So 
I understand the challenges of living without access to the 
grid. Thousands of families live this way.
    It goes back to history, why is that like that. Is it cost? 
Is it the policy that we need? I think being in this role, and 
the opportunity in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to 
strengthen our grid and our transmission and also look at 
extension to areas in Indian Country that don't have access to 
power lines, and also looking at microgrids. There are 
communities that are so remote and rural that in the ability to 
help finance something like a microgrid, a community can 
produce power for themselves. But also look at the market 
piece, can they sell power to what market.
    I liked the question about the tribal power preference. 
That is something that I definitely want our office to look at 
more and work with other agencies to make it work for Indian 
Country. Because there are a lot of conversations in this 
Country around the way that the transmission is going to be 
potentially designed in different regions of the west and 
Midwest and the southeast. I do think that there needs to be a 
space for tribal leaders and tribes to be in those 
conversations. I feel like that is our role, holding up our 
trust responsibility to provide the tools and resources to 
tribes so that they can participate, make an informed decision 
on how they want their communities to continue economically but 
also just thrive like they used to in many ways, and continue 
to.
    The community I come from, I feel our people are super-
resilient, despite not having access to power, access to water, 
access to roads. We get by. There is this really powerful 
lesson I have learned around infrastructure and the need for it 
to get to Indian Country.
    So I really appreciate all of you for passing the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law because it is going to have an 
impact. I have seen that already. Thank you.
    Senator Daines. Thank you, Director.
    The Chairman. Senator Murkowski with a final question.
    Senator Murkowski. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I have one last question for Ms. Simms Hipp. This takes it 
back to the 638 contracting and what we were able to include in 
that Farm Bill.
    There is also authority to conduct forestry management 
activities within this Tribal Forest Protection Act. I think 
there is a lot of interest in this by tribes who are looking to 
use this new authority. But we have heard that the limited 
authorities that are authorized under the Act itself, under the 
Tribal Forest Protection Act and the narrow definition of 
tribal lands could prevent this demonstration project from 
being fully utilized.
    I don't know if you are looking at these as barriers, and 
if you have any updates for me as to what you are doing to make 
sure this is something that, again, there is interest there, 
but let's make sure we have taken away the things that would 
limit the ability for participation.
    Ms. Simms Hipp. My office has actually already received the 
question. So we are already working on it with them, the Office 
of General Counsel, to really dissect what those limitations 
are that we have heard as well. We have heard it from tribal 
leaders, but we have also heard it within the Forest Service 
itself.
    Senator Murkowski. Okay.
    Ms. Simms Hipp. So we are working on that, and I would love 
to get with you and your staff and give you and the Committee 
an update on that. It is on my desk.
    Senator Murkowski. Let's do that, and I am going to ask all 
three of you as our Federal witnesses if you can respond to us 
in writing. Last year, in February, the President issued this 
executive order on America's supply chain. This is Executive 
Order 14017. This directs the Administration to support a 
resilient, diverse, secure supply chain. As part of that order, 
it requires consultation and outreach to stakeholders.
    So I would like to know what each of you and your 
respective agencies have done with regard to consultation with 
tribal governments or the relevant stakeholders, and just what 
level of outreach has gone on. That is something I would be 
happy to take in other communications.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Murkowski.
    Thank you to our Federal witnesses. Thanks for the work you 
do. Let this be the beginning of some additional conversations. 
We will follow up by letter, and also with staff on the phone 
and by email. So thank you very much to our first panelists.
    It gives me pleasure to introduce our second panel. First, 
we have Lexie Holden, the Associate Director of the Intertribal 
Agriculture Council in Billings, Montana. We also have JT 
Willie, the Director of the Division of Economic Development 
for the Navajo Nation in Window Rock, Arizona. We also have J. 
Kukui Maunakea-Forth, Founder and Executive Director of MA'O 
Organic Farms, Wai'anae, Oahu, Hawaii. And Senator Murkowski, 
would you like to introduce your witness?
    Senator Murkowski. I certainly will. Mr. Gary Hennigh is 
the City Administrator for the City of King Cove, it actually 
says on the thing Anchorage, Alaska, but he is really King 
Cove, as the City Administrator, and has been there for many 
years. I will just end by saying he is a super great guy.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    I want to remind our witnesses that your full testimony 
will be made part of the official hearing record. Please keep 
your statements to no more than five minutes so that members 
have time for questions.
    We will start with Ms. Holden.

  STATEMENT OF LEXIE HOLDEN, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF POLICY AND 
               GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, INTERTRIBAL 
                      AGRICULTURE COUNCIL

    Ms. Holden. Chairman Schatz, Vice Chair Murkowski, and 
Members of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, thank you 
for inviting me to speak with you all today.
    My name is Lexie Holden and I serve as the Associate 
Director of Policy and Government Relations for the Intertribal 
Agriculture Council. I am a citizen of the Choctaw Nation of 
Oklahoma. Today my testimony is going to focus on two tools to 
help tribal economies and communities prosper.
    One of our priorities consistently has been the intentional 
inclusion of more Native-produced foods in Federal food 
assistance programs like the Food Distribution Program on 
Indian Reservations, or FDPIR. FDPIR and other USDA food 
assistance programs represent both a critical part of the food 
safety security net for Indian Country and a dedicated 
institutional market opportunity for Native producers who are 
vastly underrepresented in these opportunities currently.
    This underrepresentation is driven by a variety of factors, 
including the complicated nature of vendor certification 
processes at the Federal level. Advocates and tribal leadership 
have encouraged USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service for years 
to be more intentional about reaching out to potential Native 
vendors by using the IAC's Technical Assistance Network as a 
resource to connect with producers directly.
    We have finally started to see movement on that in the last 
couple of years, but only after the onset of the COVID-19 
pandemic gave AMS additional impetus to rethink local food 
sourcing. We think that it shouldn't have taken a global health 
crisis for USDA to take tribal leaders and tribal producers 
seriously when they call for more Native-produced, culturally 
appropriate foods, especially in FDPIR which serves primarily 
tribal citizens.
    There are, however, other opportunities to include Native-
produced foods in these programs which do not require Native 
food businesses to navigate the Federal vendor processes. In 
the 2018 Farm Bill, Congress applied 638 tribal self-
determination contracting authority to FDPIR food purchasing in 
a demonstration project pilot that acknowledges tribal 
sovereignty and enables tribes themselves to directly buy food 
for FDPIR sites, rather than having the Federal Government make 
those decision about what our people should be eating.
    Today, because of your support and the work of tribal 
leaders and the National Association of Food Distribution 
Programs on our reservations, there are $3.5 million flowing 
into Indian Country to support the production of traditional, 
culturally appropriate, and fresh fruits and vegetables by 
Native producers, as well as Alaskan fish, all of which are 
going to tribal citizens in need through FDPIR.
    Food sourcing through these 638 contracts is a powerful 
opportunity for tribal nations to do what we have always done, 
which is feed our own people. Opportunities in this space could 
include sourcing locally produced traditional and culturally 
appropriate foods for BIE schools, either through 638 
contracting or perhaps expanded Farm to School opportunities as 
well. It is programs like these which keep food dollars 
circulating within our communities, creating jobs for our 
citizens, and making sure that those in need have access to the 
kinds of healthy foods that have supported us since time 
immemorial.
    The second tool I would like to uplift is agricultural 
resource management plans under AIARMA, the American Indian 
Agriculture Resource Management Act. The Act was passed in 
1993, but it has never been fully funded, which is 
unacceptable, considering the fact that this Act provides an 
opportunity for tribes to fully embody sovereignty over their 
lands by ensuring that tribal, not BIA, goals are utilized for 
tribal management of agricultural lands.
    The ARMP process is expensive. Tribes have to pay dedicated 
staff to build the plans and oversee the project, which 
involves substantial community feedback from tribal citizens 
and tribal leadership, not to mention the additional costs to 
actually oversee, implement and then enforce the plan. For 
example, the ARMP management team at Blackfeet Nation in 
Montana estimated that their ARMP process cost them at least 
$100,000 for the tribal loan. When tribes attempt to find 
financial or capacity building support from BIA offices for 
this process, they are often told that the offices can't help.
    Even tribal nations that are able to find external, non-
Federal funding support to embark on the ARMP development 
process are usually stymied by agency inaction within BIA as 
part of the understaffing and underfunding concerns. There 
isn't a uniform rubric or step by step process to inform tribes 
as to all the required components of the ARMP process.
    BIA can also take over six months to provide tribes with 
requested data that they have to have in order to complete 
those plans. So at a certain point, given that tribes only have 
three years to complete the plans once they start, that agency 
inaction starts to look like actionable discrimination.
    Adding to this frustration, BIA has required tribes 
engaging in ARMP processes to provide a full NEPA assessment in 
order to prove their compliance. This is a pretty burdensome 
process for tribes, especially given the lack of funding and 
staff support from BIA. Essentially, the bottom line is that 
BIA needs more staff and more available dedicated programmatic 
funding to be able to implement these agricultural resource 
management plans. Tribes need AIARMA to be fully funded in 
order to take advantages of the promise of this legislation.
    Thank you for taking the time to listen to my testimony. I 
believe that these two tools, 638 Tribal Self-Governance 
contracts and ARMPs could become invaluable in strengthening 
tribal economies by facilitating market access for Native 
producers and bolstering tribal self-determination. They just 
require your support.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared testimony of Ms. Holden follows:]

 Prepared Statement of Lexie Holden, Associate Director of Policy and 
         Government Relations, Intertribal Agriculture Council
Introduction
    Chairman Schatz, Vice Chair Murkowski, and Members of the Senate 
Committee on Indian Affairs, thank you for inviting me to speak with 
you all today. My name is Lexie Holden and I serve as the Associate 
Director of Policy & Government Relations for the Intertribal 
Agriculture Council. I am a citizen of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma. 
Today my testimony will focus on two tools which, if given the support 
they require, will continue to help Tribal economies and communities 
prosper.
Tool 1: 638 Tribal Self-Determination Contracting at USDA
    One of the priorities of the Native Farm Bill Coalition (NFBC), of 
which the IAC is a founding member, has consistently been the 
intentional inclusion of more Native-produced foods in federal food 
assistance programs, like the Food Distribution Program on Indian 
Reservations (FDPIR). FDPIR and other USDA food assistance programs 
represent both a critical part of the food security safety net for 
Indian Country and a dedicated institutional market opportunity for 
Native producers, who are vastly underrepresented in these 
opportunities currently.
    This underrepresentation is driven by a variety of factors, 
including the complicated nature of vendor certification processes at 
the federal level. The NFBC and Tribal leadership have encouraged 
USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) for years to be more 
intentional about reaching out to potential Native vendors by utilizing 
the IAC's Technical Assistance Network as a resource to connect with 
producers directly.
    We have finally started to see movement on that in the last few 
years--but only after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic gave AMS 
additional impetus to rethink local food sourcing. It should not have 
taken a global health crisis for USDA to take Tribal leaders and 
producers seriously when they call for more Native-produced, culturally 
appropriate foods, especially in FDPIR which serves primarily Tribal 
citizens.
    There are, however, other opportunities to include Native-produced 
foods in these programs that do not require Native food businesses to 
navigate the federal vendor processes. In the 2018 Farm Bill, Congress 
applied ``638'' Tribal self-determination contracting authority to 
FDPIR food purchasing in a demonstration project pilot that 
acknowledges Tribal sovereignty and enables Tribes themselves to 
directly buy food for FDPIR sites, rather than having the federal 
government make those decisions about what our people should be eating. 
This was a historic moment for Indian Country, as this authority had 
never before been applied to USDA.
    Today, because of Congressional support and the work of Tribal 
leaders and the National Association of FDPIR, there are $3.5 million 
dollars flowing into Indian Country to support the production of 
traditional, culturally appropriate, and fresh fruits and vegetables by 
Native producers, all of which are going to Tribal citizens in need 
through FDPIR.
    Food sourcing through these 638 contracts is a powerful opportunity 
for Tribal Nations to do what we have always done: feed our own people. 
Opportunities in this space could include sourcing locally produced 
traditional and culturally appropriate foods for BIE schools, either 
through 638 contracting or expanded Farm to School opportunities. 
Programs like these keep food dollars circulating within our 
communities, create jobs for our citizens, and make sure that those in 
need have access to the kinds of healthy foods that have supported us 
from time immemorial.
Tool 2: Agricultural Resource Management Plans
    The second tool I would like to uplift is AIARMA, the American 
Indian Agriculture Resource Management Act. It was passed in 1993, but 
has never been fully funded. This is unacceptable, considering the 
opportunity the Act provides for Tribes to fully embody sovereignty 
over their lands by ensuring that Tribal, not Bureau of Indian Affairs 
(BIA) goals, are utilized for Tribal management of agricultural lands.
    Current BIA policies that direct ``best interests'' decisionmaking 
regarding Tribal land leases frequently result in lease award 
determinations heavily weighted in favor of the highest bidder, which 
is frequently a non-Native off-reservation lessee. When non-Native off-
reservation bidders are awarded, the vast majority of revenues 
resulting from production activity on those Tribally held leased lands, 
do not recirculate on reservation and the leased lands are subjected to 
production practices that are largely extractive, that is investments 
and enrollment in conservation activities or programs and compliance 
with grazing or land management best practices often fall short.
    But this frequently occurring scenario can be addressed through an 
Agriculture Resource Management Plan or ARMP, which is a comprehensive 
plan that addresses not only use recommendations and preferences for 
physical agriculture attributes but incorporates Tribal preference into 
land management activity. A Tribal bidder preference for Tribal trust 
lands can be incorporated into an ARMP and encourage better land 
management practices with Tribal support as well as facilitate the 
recirculation of revenues on reservation, benefitting Tribal economies 
as a whole, encouraging generational and community wealth, and create 
or expand private revenue cycles independent of Tribal government 
allocations.
    Yet the creation of an ARMP is an expensive process to undertake. 
Tribes must pay dedicated staff to develop the plans and oversee the 
project, which involves substantial community feedback from all Tribal 
citizens and buy-in from Tribal leadership. For example, the ARMP 
management team at Blackfeet Nation in Montana estimated that their 
ARMP process cost them at least $100,000 for their Tribe alone. But 
when Tribes attempt to find financial or capacity support from BIA 
offices for this process, they are too frequently told that offices are 
understaffed and underfunded and cannot help.
    Even Tribal Nations that are able to find external--non-federal--
funding support to embark on the ARMP development process are often 
completely stymied by agency inaction within BIA as part of 
understaffing concerns. BIA sometimes takes over 6 months to provide 
Tribes with requested data that they must have to complete their plans. 
At a certain point, given that Tribes only have three years to complete 
the ARMP process within the framework provided by the statute, that 
agency inaction begins to resemble actionable discrimination.
    Adding to this frustration, BIA has required Tribes engaging in 
ARMP processes to provide a full National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA) assessment in order to prove their compliance. This an 
incredibly burdensome process, especially given the lack of funding and 
staff support from BIA. The bottom line is, BIA needs more staff and 
Tribes need AIARMA to be fully funded in order to truly take advantage 
of the promise of this legislation.
A Path Forward
    I believe that these two tools, 638 Tribal Self-Governance 
contracts and Agricultural Resource Management Plans, could become 
invaluable to the strengthening of Tribal economies by facilitating 
market access for Native producers and by bolstering Tribal self-
determination. They just require your support.
    Native Americans have engaged in agriculture to feed their 
communities since time immemorial. Yet, our traditional ecological 
knowledge of North America's rich and complex food systems was 
suppressed in favor of creating a food system more familiar to 
settlers. Our deep connection to and respect for the land, water, and 
fauna was often disregarded in favor of a style of agricultural 
production which favored scale and profits. While early treaties 
between Tribes and the United States forced Native Americans to become 
farmers, many of our producers now choose to feed their communities in 
more traditional, sustainable, and regenerative ways. This choice is an 
exercise of our right to self-determination.
    According to the 2017 Census of Agriculture, nearly 80,000 Tribal 
producers were operating on over 59 million acres of land, selling $3.5 
billion worth of agricultural products. However, many Native Americans 
are unable to access the food produced within their own Tribal 
communities. This is in part due to modern-day barriers, preventing our 
access to land, credit, and markets have caused Native-produced food to 
leave the community, taking the associated ``food dollars'' with it.
Interdepartmental Coordination
    One solution to some of the barriers Native American producers face 
is to increase interdepartmental coordination. There are several 
relationships which need to be improved: (1) the relationship between 
USDA and BIA, (2) the relationship between USDA, the Department of 
Commerce, and the State Department, and (3) the relationship between 
USDA and the GSA.
    The first relationship between USDA and BIA must be improved 
because many restrictions governing leases on Tribal lands have an 
impact on which USDA programs our producers can access. Additionally, 
the current leasing structure is such that it favors the interests of 
the BIA rather than those of Tribal governments. Currently, leasing 
contracts on Tribal reservations are given to the highest bidder who, 
more often than not, is not Native American. This lack of connection to 
the community, as well as the relatively short lease lengths (10 years) 
encourage lessees to take as much as they can from the land in order to 
maximize profits, rather than operate in a manner which considers how 
future generations will be able to access that land and the surrounding 
waters. This leads to a degradation of the best plots of land within 
Tribal communities, while Tribal producers are forced to make do with 
plots which are of lower quality, placing them at an operational 
disadvantage from the start. While this might suit some Tribes, Tribal 
governments should have the ability to determine for themselves what 
leasing looks like on their lands.
    To connect the importance of the aforementioned ARMPs with this 
conversation around the BIA/USDA relationship, if a Tribe were able to 
change their leasing structure it might initially result in a decrease 
in cash revenue, it would likely ultimately benefit the Tribe's 
economy. When an Agricultural Resource Management Plan favors or 
prefers bidders who are Tribal citizens, rather than the highest 
bidder, better support for Tribal sovereignty is only one outcome. The 
other outcomes include better resource management and increased on-
reservation revenue circulation. Better resource management increases 
agriculture resource health in the long-term, while simultaneously 
increasing the quality and size of the yield. When agricultural revenue 
is able to circulate within the reservation economy, it creates more 
viable opportunities for business, morejobs, and more opportunities for 
scaling up operations through investments. It is in this way that ARMPs 
support Tribal economies.
    The third relationship which needs to be improved upon is that 
between the USDA and GSA. The current Federal Acquisition Regulations 
(FAR), created by the GSA, do not support bringing more Native American 
producers into federal procurement contracts. At present, Part 26-1 of 
FAR provides an Indian Incentive Program. While we advocate for such 
incentives, the way in which the Program is structured does not 
actually benefit Native American producers. The Program encourages 
prime contractors to work with Native American subcontractors or 
vendors. However, the incentive funds go to the prime contractor who is 
likely non-Native, not the Native American vendor who likely faces 
barriers to access federal procurement contracts. This structure 
ultimately does not help our producers. The incentives should go to the 
Native American vendor as well.
Buy Indian/Buy Native American Preference
    Currently, the Buy Indian Act (25 USC 47) directs the Secretary of 
the Interior and the Secretary of Health and Human Services to use 
Indian labor and purchase Indian industry products except where 
impracticable and unreasonable. Such a preference for Native American 
employees and vendors should be extended to the USDA, especially 
whenever USDA is purchasing any product, including food, for the 
purposes of feeding Native Ameicans within their communities. As the 
rate of food insecurity is highest for Native American households 
compared to all other racial/ethnic demographics, it makes sense to 
source food to feed Tribal communities from Tribal producers. 
Additionally, for many Tribal nations, their economy is based on 
agriculture production. In this way, our communities are able to access 
local or regionally grown, often traditional, foods, and Tribal 
producers are able to access federal procurement contracts which they 
historically have been excluded from. If the desire to support Tribal 
economies is sincere, then a concerted effort should be made to fill 
federal food procurement contracts with products made and produced by 
Native Americans. The inclusion of the USDA in the Buy Indian Act would 
help accomplish this.
Access to Credit
    Much of Indian Country is considered a credit desert. There are not 
enough financial institutions willing to lend capital to Native 
Americans, particularly for the purposes of agriculture. One of the 
greatest allies in this effort that has made significant progress is 
the Native Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI). Native 
CDFIs deserve the support to continue their current work, along with 
the resources and tools to begin tackling agriculture lending. In 
addition to supporting Native CDFIs, there should be reforms within the 
larger financial institution space.
    In the 2018 Farm Bill, the Native Farm Bill Coalition requested an 
in-depth GAO report on access to agriculture credit across Indian 
Country. This was requested with the Community Reinvestment Act in 
mind. This Act encouraged financial institutions to serve low- and 
moderate-income neighborhoods, including areas on or near Indian 
reservations. We know that access to credit remains a barrier for 
Native American producers, and this report would provide the data 
necessary to make targeted and broad reforms. However, we instead 
received a study on the Farm Credit System and its role in helping 
Native American producers access credit. This was far too narrow in 
scope, and the results have still not been shared.
    The USDA plays a key role in closing the credit access gap for 
Tribal communities. Tribal Nations, Native/Intertribal organizations, 
and individual Native American producers use the USDA to access funds 
because it remains difficult to access them elsewhere. However, the 
USDA is not a perfect lender or grantor. We suggest that the USDA 
create Tribal set-asides in any programs which impact Tribal 
communities, increase the amount that USDA as an agency is willing to 
invest in projects (to at least 50 percent of the project cost), and 
transition away from loan programs to grant programs.
Access to Markets
    Native American producers do not only face barriers when attempting 
to access credit, but when trying to access domestic and international 
markets as well. Within the domestic market, food safety regulations 
can preclude Native American producers from participating in interstate 
commerce. Many Tribal Nations exercise their sovereignty by growing, 
harvesting, fishing, and hunting for their own food, and by developing 
their own Tribal food codes. Yet for those Tribes who have not 
developed their own Tribal food codes, federal food safety regulations 
do not always comport with traditional means of gathering food. Access 
to certified kitchens and processing facilities are also a challenge, 
preventing Tribes without access to these tools from transporting and 
selling their products across state lines.
    Infrastructure and equipment needs are a primary concern for 
producers seeking domestic and international market access. According 
to the 2017 Census of Agriculture, 24,744 American Indian/Alaska 
Native-operated farms specialized in beef cattle. Yet at that time, 
there were no beef processing facilities owned and operated by a Native 
American Tribe before the Quapaw's facility opened in 2018. Although 
more Tribes now own and operate their own meat, poultry, and seafood 
facilities, access to processing facilities remains limited across 
Indian Country, inhibiting producers.
    International market access can be hampered by many factors 
including competition from larger conglomerates or businesses that have 
the overhead to compete in the rapidly changing global markets. Our 
Tribal producers market their items as ``premium'' products, 
represented by their higher prices due to the higher costs of 
agricultural production in Indian Country. In Indian Country, 
everything is more expensive, from infrastructure like roads and 
broadband to farm equipment, fuel, and feed. Many consumers or buyers 
do not understand the barrier with Tribal producers must overcome in 
order to sell their products, and will choose the cheaper options 
instead. Other factors include capacity, political concerns, logistic 
disruptions, and rising energy and material/packaging prices.
    Providing ongoing outreach to introduce USDA programs and services 
to Tribal governments, communities, and individuals to improve 
understanding of regulatory and technical support. Additionally, 
program funds received through Foreign Ag Services, like the Market 
Access Program and Agricultural Trade Promotion, are critical to the 
continuation of global market access opportunities for emerging or 
small to medium size Indian companies. These funds should both continue 
to flow to Native American producers, and the amount available to our 
producers should increase in order to help Native Americans capture a 
larger share of the agriculture market.

    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    Next, we have JT Willie, the Director of the Division of 
Economic Development for the Navajo Nation.

   STATEMENT OF JT WILLIE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NAVAJO NATION 
                DIVISION OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

    Mr. Willie. Good afternoon, honorable members of the 
Committee, Chairman Schatz, Vice Chair Murkowski. My name is JT 
Willie, and I will be speaking on behalf of the Navajo Nation 
and the Navajo businesses located throughout the great Navajo 
Nation.
    I am the Executive Director for the Navajo Nation Division 
of Economic Development, which is located here in Window Rock, 
Arizona, on the great Navajo Nation. Our division is primarily 
focused to advance the economic opportunities here on the 
Navajo Nation through various initiatives. Our program is 
designed to work with all of our partners, whether it is 
through tribal nations, with the State or with the Federal 
Government. As the world modernizes, so too must the Navajo 
Nation, of course, with the reestablishment of policies, 
adjustments so that that are impactful to our Navajo Nation.
    As we continued to seek continued opportunities to boost 
economic growth for future generations, however, like economies 
throughout the world, the Navajo Nation faced challenges during 
the COVID-19 pandemic. Great socioeconomic challenges and 
scarce access to basic infrastructure resources, which many of 
my colleagues spoke to as I listened at the beginning of this 
hearing today, is very true here on the Navajo Nation. 
Therefore, the historic and current reality for many tribal 
members is a reality for us. Therefore, we strive to continue 
to sustain our livelihoods, especially those from the business 
community.
    It is the most basic things that many Americans have access 
to outside of the reservation, such as clean running water, 
electricity, gas, broadband, groceries, and basic services, 
these were all very limited to us during the COVID-19 pandemic. 
As we see that the Nation is moving forward, the Navajo Nation 
still is in that state where much access to these necessities 
has been very limited.
    So our businesses have been facing various obstacles. The 
environment for business on tribal lands can be very limited 
due to Federal policies and laws. Many of these regulations 
were drafted and agreed upon in a dramatically different 
context and space.
    Additionally, centuries-long discrimination and 
mistreatment have resulted in the high socioeconomic 
disparities that we face here, including those that decrease 
the sociopolitical abilities, educational and health 
inequities, language and linguistic barriers, limited financial 
literacy, inadequate and reduced financial opportunities, which 
makes it also impossible for our economy to be competitive with 
outside, what we call border town locations around the Navajo 
Nation. And of course, the barriers to the basic infrastructure 
and minimal space for advancement.
    Navajo-owned businesses are often unable to obtain Federal 
assistance due to issues with credit, struggles to provide 
documentation, and of course, the longevity of some of these 
applications. With the limitation of infrastructure such as the 
basic need for broadband, many of these businesses located in 
rural areas throughout the Navajo Nation don't have direct 
access to those portals that are located online.
    Fortunately, with the CARES funds, we were given an 
opportunity to assist our tribal members, those within the 
business community, with financial resources. So we are very 
thankful to members of Congress for helping us in allocating 
those funds to the Navajo Nation, which our division had 
spearheaded to allocate what we called the Navajo CARES Act 
Artisan and Small Business Economic Relief Grants. These grants 
were offered not only to Navajo entrepreneurs but to artisans. 
The artisans are the grassroots of the Navajo Nation. Through 
various allotments of $5,000 to $60,000, we were able to 
provide assistance to our Navajo entrepreneurs, which helped 
over 4,302 business owners.
    Prior to the pandemic, we had a data base of about 195 
businesses. But through this process, we were able to identify 
6,346 more individuals who are Navajo-owned businesses 
throughout the Navajo Nation, even those located off the 
reservation.
    Therefore, as we move forward with the American Rescue Plan 
Act, we look to reopen the program and to start moving forward. 
Our division has also been given the green light by the U.S. 
Treasury to initiate the State Small Credit Business 
Initiative. Through that, we are working with our partners 
which are Change Labs, Dineh Chamber, and the Navajo CDFI to 
expedite that program.
    However, some of the issues that our legislative body can 
address include those that many of us spoke to earlier, which 
is those hesitancies from the bank financial institutions, 
greater financial resources for our government. Also to revisit 
policies that limit the land tribal bank ownership here.
    With that being said, I have submitted my written comments 
as well. I thank you for this time, members of the Committee.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Willie follows:]

  Prepared Statement of JT Willie, Executive Director, Navajo Nation 
                    Division of Economic Development
    Chairman Schatz, Vice-Chairman Murowski, and Members of the 
Committee. On behalf of the Navajo Nation and our Navajo Business 
Community, I thank you for the opportunity to speak with you regarding 
support for Native Business Capacity Building and Success and the Buy 
Native American initiative. My name is JT Willie and I am the Executive 
Director for the Navajo Nation Division of Economic Development (DED) 
located in in St. Michaels, Arizona within the great Navajo Nation.
    The DED is one of fourteen divisions within the Executive Branch of 
the Navajo Nation Government. The DED is the primary entity of the 
Navajo Nation to advance the economic development initiatives of the 
Navajo Nation. \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ NNDED and Fourth World Design Group. (April 2018). Navajo 
Nation Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy 2018. P. 3. 
Retrieved from https://www.coconino.az.gov/DocumentCenter/View/27915/
Navajo-Nation-Comprehensive-Economic-Development-Strategy?bidId=
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The division's objective is to promote, support and encourage 
economic development in the commercial, small business, tourism, 
industrial and other sectors of the Navajo Nation economy to improve 
the overall quality of life for the Navajo people.
    The division consists of the following Departments:

  Administration
  Business Regulatory Department
  Project Development Department
  Tourism Department
  Real Estate Department
  Support Services Department
  Small Business Development Department/Regional Business 
        Development Offices

    In 2021 the Navajo Nation became the largest federally recognized 
tribe in the United States with a total population of approximately 
399,494 members. \2\ The Navajo Nation has a land base of approximately 
17 million acres of land, which covers over 27,000 square miles within 
the states of Arizona, New Mexico and Utah. The Navajo Nation consists 
of 5 agencies and 110-chapter communities. The Navajo Nation was 
established as a sovereign nation in the Treaty of 1868 between the 
Navajo Nation and the United States. The Navajo Nation is governed by a 
three-branch government system, similar to the U.S. Federal Government 
structure. This consists of the Legislative Branch, Executive Branch, 
and Judicial Branch. There are 110 chapter communities within 5 
agencies throughout the Navajo Nation each with unique characteristics, 
qualities, and challenges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Indian Country Today. (May 2021). Cherokee no longer largest 
tribe. Retrieved from: https://indiancountrytoday.com/news/cherokee-no-
longer-largest-tribe-navajo-wins
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Navajo Nation is facing extraordinary challenges, including 
health and social disparity, poverty, as well as language and cultural 
pressures. Yet, as the Navajo Nation evolves the Navajo people continue 
to balance culture, tradition, language and modernism. \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ NNDED and Fourth World Design Group.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Navajo Nation is continuing to seek and consider opportunities 
to boost the economic growth for future generations. The Tribe 
continues to move forward on projects that are profitable, viable, 
increase employment, improve infrastructure for development, target 
untapped resources, provide assistance and support for small 
businesses, improve existing enterprises, and capitalize on new 
economic prospects using innovation and ingenuity.
    The Navajo Nation, like the rest of the globe faced historical 
challenge that has forever impacted our path forward. March 2020 the 
World Health Organization declared the COVID-19 outbreak as a pandemic. 
Globally, economies stammered to a crawl and many businesses struggled 
to meet their basic needs. The Navajo Nation was hit particularly hard 
having faced challenges never experienced before.
    Unimaginable socioeconomic challenges and scarce access to basic 
infrastructure resources was and remains the reality for many tribal 
members. This is especially true for the business community that 
strives to sustain their way of life. Things that that most Americans 
take for granted like access to clean running water, electric, gas, 
broadband, groceries, and basic services were limited prior to the 
arrival of COVID-19.
    Businesses also face additional barriers. The environment for 
businesses on tribal lands can be severely limiting due to federal 
policies and laws. Many of these regulations were drafted and agreed 
upon in a dramatically different context and space. Additionally, 
centuries long discrimination and mistreatment have resulted in 
heighted socioeconomic disparities, decreased sociopolitical abilities, 
educational and health inequalities, language/linguistical barriers, 
limited financial literacy, inadequate and reduced financial 
opportunities, insurmountable economic competition outside tribal 
borders, barriers toward basic logistical infrastructure, and minimal 
space for advancement. Navajo-owned businesses are often unable to 
attain federal assistance due to issues with credit, struggles to 
provide documentation, and oppressive applications. \4\ The added 
burdens of the pandemic further exacerbated issues, therefore putting 
more weight onto a nation that was already struggling to modernize and 
adapt to a globalized world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Krisst, Rima. ``Struggling. Almost in ruins': Limited access to 
COVID-19 relief, PPE leaves Businesses,'' Navajo Times, October 23, 
2020, https://navajotimes.com/biz/almost-in-ruins-limited-access-to-
covid-19-relief-ppe-leaves-businesses-struggling/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The CARES Act was passed by Congress on March 25, 2020 and signed 
into law on March 27, 2020. The Navajo Nation received its allocation 
of $714M on June 26, 2020 with Navajo Nation Council Resolution No. 
CMY-44-20, known as the Navajo Nation CARES Fund Act in place funding 
was available provided a link to resources at an unprecedented scope 
and scale. \5\ The Navajo Nation Council allocated $60M for economic 
development purposes and was assigned to the Navajo Nation Division of 
Economic Development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ 24th Navajo Nation Council, Office of the Speaker. (2020, June 
29). Navajo Nation Receives $714 million in federal CARES Act funding. 
[Press Release]. Retrieved from: https://www.navajonationcouncil.org/
wp-content/uploads/2020/09/
Navajo_Nation_receives_total_714189631_dollars_in_federal_CARES_Act_fund
ing_PR.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This provided an opportunity to assist tribal members, most 
especially the business community with financial resources. The DED 
established the Navajo CARES Act Artisan and Small Business Economic 
Relief Grant to provide financial support to Navajo entrepreneurs and 
business owners. Artists that include, but not limited to; performers, 
silversmiths, rug weavers, jewelry makers, potters, leatherworkers, 
crafters, dancers, cultural performers, comedians, storytellers, and 
more were able to apply and receive up to $5,000 in artisan grant 
funds. Small business, equally diverse, that included entities such as; 
sheepherders, traveling vendors, roadside food stand venders, rodeo 
professionals, farriers, consultants, restaurants, bed and breakfasts, 
tour companies, and more were able to apply and receive up to $60,000 
in small business grant funds. These funds were to be used for payroll, 
business loan interest payments, rent and utilities, new or expanded 
technology, mitigate COVID-19, and marketing costs.
    Due to the time constraints written into the federal legislation, 
the grant program was only open for 72 calendar days. The program 
launched on Labor Day, September 7, 2020 and closed November 20, 2020. 
Treasury guidelines required that funds needed to be expended by 
December 21, 2020. This created additional timing challenges along with 
constraints to acquire resources for outreach and communication, safety 
measures, recruit personnel, lack of office space, and internal tribal 
barriers. Additionally, the division worked to simplify the processes 
as best possible. However, it still provided some challenges for 
applicants. The two-step process included business registration and a 
grant application. The division was able to disburse approximately $28 
million in direct grant funding to support to 4,302 business owners. 
The remaining $32 million was returned to general Navajo CARES Act 
funds for distribution to the Navajo Hardship Assistance program.
    Prior to March 2020 the Navajo Nation Business Regulatory 
Department (BRD) had a source list of 195 businesses that were Navajo 
majority owned at 51 percent or greater and registered with the tribe. 
Professional services made up a majority of the businesses with 57 
percent and the rest following; general contractors--38 percent, 
special trades/subcontractors -16 percent, and suppliers 7 percent. At 
the conclusion of the program all data was gathered for review and 
analysis then published in a report to Navajo Nation Council titled; 
``NNDED CARES Act: Artisan and Small Business Grant Report.'' \6\ 
Following these internal reports and analysis, the division reported 
6,346 entities to be included with the 195 businesses previously 
registered within BRD's source list.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Navajo Nation Division of Economic Development
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The artisan grant awarded the majority share of the amount 
disbursed, totaling $15.7 million and small businesses received $12.8 
million. Of the total, 74.6 percent went to artisans and 25.4 percent 
to small business grants.
    Other key findings and observations:

  The majority of applications were businesses located/operated 
        outside of the Navajo Nation. Immediate access of 
        infrastructure, especially broadband, allowed for an easier 
        application process.

  More applicants from chapters with greater access to 
        infrastructure, in particular chapters where Navajo Tribal 
        Utility Authority offices are located or other government 
        entity offering free use of WIFI located in Window Rock, Tuba 
        City, Chinle, Crownpoint and Shiprock.

  Remote and rural communities had fewer applicants. This could 
        be due to government travel restrictions, limited to no 
        financial means for travel, lack of Internet service and 
        technology, artists not considering themselves as business 
        owners/entrepreneurs, concern of financial ramifications, 
        concern of government oversight.

  15 percent of total applications were denied or returned to 
        applicant due to insufficient documentation and/or information.

  There are a total of 6,346 newly identified businesses in 
        some capacity that are owned by an enrolled member of the 
        Navajo Nation.

    Despite the many challenges, hardships, and tribulations the 
pandemic created, it also offered opportunities. The Navajo Nation has 
always been unique in culture, language, and now in the function of 
economics. However, a very crucial component of economics is research 
and data. There is a critical need for proper data representation for 
all Native American communities. Often data statistics as seen in many 
census reports is inconclusive or lacks enough substantial 
representation to be significant. The division has been fortunate in 
receiving data through the grant program.
    The Navajo Nation received nearly $2 billion in federal funding 
through the American Rescue Plan Act. The $32 million that was returned 
for the Navajo Hardship Assistance Program in 2020 will be returned to 
the division for distribution to Navajo artists and small businesses 
that were not able to receive grant funds from the original Navajo 
CARES Act grant program. It is our mission to see that the full $32 
million be awarded and disbursed to help further support our Navajo 
business community and ultimately help the Navajo Economy find its 
footing.
    The division was given the green light to submit an application for 
funds from the U.S. Treasury's State Small Business Credit Initiative 
(SSBCI). This program provides federal funding to Tribes to distribute 
in a variety of programs that support the credit and capital needs of 
Navajo-owned small businesses and entrepreneurs.
    With the assistance of the Navajo Nation Department of Justice 
Economic Development Unit, the division has initiated drafting the 
SSBCI application due to U.S. Treasury, May 11, 2022. The first phase 
will be planning and development of Navajo SSBCI programs. To assist, 
three Navajo business partners have been invited to collaborate; Change 
Labs of Tuba City, Dineh Chamber of Commerce and Navajo CDFI both of 
Window Rock. Their expertise, knowledge, and relationships within the 
business community were the basis of the decision to invite the trio to 
spearhead our development and implementation of the SSBCI programs. 
They also collectively have demonstrated experience in small business 
loans, startup capital, and knowledge of investment opportunities to 
support Navajo business owners and entrepreneurs.
    However, the ability for Navajo businesses, especially on tribal 
lands, is made a challenge. There are several issues that generate 
hurdles and impossible to navigate pathways to attain capital and 
credit.
    Some barriers include, but are not limited to:

  Banks/financial institutions hesitancy due to rigid policies 
        as a result of federal tribal laws.

  Borrower's credit history.

  Lack of collateral.

        --Land status, home ownership.

  Lack of experience with the financial world.

  Lender and investors not understanding tribal government 
        issues.

  Historic distrust of banks and tribes.

  Discrimination.

    Programs like SSBCI will allow the Navajo Nation to fill in the gap 
that financial institutions cannot fill. Restrictive policies and 
practices have inhibited the economic growth that is seen just outside 
our borders. The economy of the Navajo Nation depends on the 
willingness of the U.S. Federal Government to allow greater flexibility 
or see that innovative ideas turn into substantial and impactful 
policies that foster greater autonomy for our economic decisions. It is 
widely understood that Small Businesses are the foundation of the 
economy. We ask for greater flexibility to support our Navajo Small 
Businesses and ultimately contribute to the greater American economy.

    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    It gives me pleasure to introduce and say hello to you, if 
not in person, J. Kukui Maunakea-Forth, Founder and Executive 
Director of MA'O Organic Farms in Wai'anae, on the island of 
Oahu in Hawaii. Aloha, and welcome. Nice to see you again, even 
if not in person.

    STATEMENT OF J. KUKUI MAUNAKEA-FORTH, FOUNDER/EXECUTIVE 
                  DIRECTOR, MA'O ORGANIC FARMS

    Ms. Maunakea-Forth. [Greeting in Native tongue.] I am so 
bolstered by the comments that were made earlier to affirm and 
give life to the many, many strategies and policies and 
workarounds that are being put in place to uplift our people, 
particularly the legislation and the policies around protecting 
and safeguarding our women and girls. Mahalo.
    My name is Kukui [phrase in Native tongue] Maunakea-Forth. 
I am from Wai'Anae, and I am really, really pleased to be a 
witness today.
    Our testimony, what I realized in listening to the other 
speakers, is that many of the comments today were about tribal 
and the sovereignty expressed through tribal governments. But 
as many know, that is not the case for Native Hawaiians. So my 
testimony today, I believe, will sort of reflect maybe some 
very similar challenges. But of course, some of those 
challenges are complicated by not just the political status of 
Kanaka Maoli, but also I think even impacted by just our 
geographic proximity to resources that the Federal agencies 
have tried to mitigate in providing those programs to us.
    So MA'O Organic Farms is a social enterprise. Our parent 
organization is a non-profit organization. We are a very, very 
small piece of the entire Hawaiian and island-based or land-
based organizations here, network of organizations here. Our 
work is considerable, particularly after the pandemic. Because 
our region has many of the socioeconomic disparities found in 
Native communities. We know that we are disproportionately 
impacted compared to other areas in our State.
    Poverty is intergenerational. The work that we do is to 
really bridge educational aspirations, access to post-secondary 
opportunities for our young people through the means of 
reconnecting them with the land and addressing our food 
insecurity and food sovereignty. Over the 20 years utilizing 
and leveraging many of the Federal earmarks from the Native 
Hawaiian programs, we have been able to grow from five acres to 
286 acres. We have been able to serve over 500 students with 
post-secondary aspirations. We have graduated many, over 150, 
with their associate degrees, and 47 with BA degrees.
    So we know that this program works. Those are the 
programmatic benefits. But we also in that time, those same 
young people have been able to grow good food, organic food, 
fruits and vegetables for the community, generating over $8 
million cumulatively in our produce sales. All of those flow 
directly back into our local economy.
    But we want to also note that the many challenges that were 
expressed today by other Federal witnesses and my colleagues 
just now are certainly the same things that we face. Some of 
the things that we want to ensure that is heard at this 
particular moment is just the definition of rural, the term 
rural, and being able to address that in a meaningful way, 
Considering Oahu is made up of four counties and the city of 
Honolulu, which is the most populated island, Wai'anae is 
located on the west or leeward coast of that island, which 
renders us sometimes ineligible for many of the programs that 
would benefit Hawaii but not our programs here in Wai'anae.
    So although we have great partnerships with many of the 
local agencies that are represented here, including USDA and 
HUD, EPA and others, oftentimes again, the accessibility and 
then also the pipeline of programs is something that may be a 
hit or miss for a small CBO like us. The need really is to have 
increased coordination and collaboration with our local 
agencies represented here, and to retool some of the policies, 
make adjustments mainly, to some of the things that are in 
place now that are not allowing us access to those programs.
    I want to leave you with the idea that the written 
testimony is there, but we always want folks to visit us, to 
understand and to talk story about how we can work together. 
Many of the panelists and many of the folks here, we have had 
some meetings, but we invite more talk story and more planning, 
more coordination from everyone. We thank you for this time.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Maunakea-Forth follows:]

   Prepared Statement of J. Kukui Maunakea-Forth, Founder/Executive 
                      Director, MA'O Organic Farms
    Dear Committee Members:
    This week, 44 high school juniors and seniors from the Wai'anae 
region are spending Spring Break on our farm. From 7am--1pm, they are 
immersing themselves in the basics of growing row crops, helping to 
fulfill produce orders bound for markets and tables all over Oahu, and 
working with our education staff to learn about Ola--holistic health 
and well being in a Hawaiian cultural context--while also planning for 
their transition to college and working alongside 60+ other college and 
recent college-graduate farmers. For most, the paid Spring Break 
internship is not only a chance to make a little extra money, it is the 
first entry into life at MA'O (MA'O is an acronym for Mala 'Ai 'Opio, 
the youth food garden, or the garden that feeds youth, where every 
year, college-aged youth from our community defy the odds and 
expectations of Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islanders from the Wai'anae 
region to run one of Hawai'i's largest certified organic farms while 
also engaged in full-time college degree programs at Leeward Community 
College and the University of Hawai'i at West O'ahu.
    MA'O is embedded in and primarily serves the community of Wai'anae, 
which is one of the poorest and most food insecure regions of Hawai'i. 
Much of the community struggles with the impacts of intergenerational 
poverty, including preventable diseases, homelessness, and hunger. The 
region's socio-economic disparities disproportionately impact native 
Hawaiians, who make up 58 percent of the community, compared with 21 
percent of the state's population.
    The region's poverty is entrenched in the relationship between low 
educational attainment and low income. With 16 percent of the region's 
adult population lacking a high school diploma, and 88 percent lacking 
a Bachelor's degree, well-paying jobs are out of reach for the 
majority. Wai'anae's per capita income is $17,800, compared to the 
state's $29,500. Coupled with an unemployment rate triple that of the 
state's, these low wages relegate a quarter of the community to living 
under the 100 percent federal poverty level.
    The inverse of Wai'anae's deficits is the tremendous opportunity 
MA'O provides: to empower and educate Wai'anae youth to lead the 
community to a healthy and prosperous future through the creation of a 
culturally rooted sustainable food system. In our 22-year history, we 
have:

  Grown from 5-acres of leased land to owning 286-acres, 
        acquired through 4 separate purchases over the last 12 years.

  Served over 500 college interns and over 600 high school 
        interns through paid workforce training internships and college 
        tuition waivers

  Graduated over 150 youth with Associates degrees, 47 with 
        Baccalaureate degrees, and 1 Master's degree.

  Produced over 2 million pounds cumulatively of organic fruits 
        and vegetables for our community.

  Generated over $8 Million cumulatively in produce sales, 
        which are dollars re-invested in our youth workforce training 
        and education programs.

    Throughout our organization's history, federal programs have helped 
catalyze key stages of our growth.

  On four separate occasions, funding from the US DHHS ACF 
        Administration for Native Americans (ANA) allowed MA'O to hire 
        or retain education staff and develop a culturally and 
        communally relevant workforce training program;

  A grant from the US DOE Native Hawaiian Education Program 
        supported MA'O and our partners at Wai'anae High School and 
        Wai'anae Intermediate School to strengthen our farm-to-school 
        programming;

  A past loan from the USDA contributed to the purchase of an 
        8-acre parcel bordering our existing farm, growing our 
        operations that allowed more internships and job opportunities 
        to be created;

  A current grant from USDA Natural Resource Conservation 
        Service which allowed us to promote a farm manager into a 
        program coordinator position who will expand our summer 
        college-level internship program across to five (5) other O'ahu 
        farms engaged in traditional Native Hawaiian, climate-smart 
        food production practices; and,

  A current grant from the US Department of Commerce Economic 
        Development Agency provides key funding for a new food safety-
        certified post-harvest wash/pack and training facility 
        (breaking ground in a few weeks) that will allow MA'O to expand 
        its operations and internship/workforce opportunities.

    Without a doubt, MA'O could not have achieved our impact to-date 
without the support of these programs. With each, we have become better 
at articulating our needs and our outcomes. These key investments into 
predominantly native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander communities are key 
to addressing many of the entrenched socio-economic challenges faced by 
our communities. The funds are directed towards systems-level 
interventions that simultaneously generate individual/youth, 
organizational and community-level outcomes. Not only have we been able 
to grow the enterprise operations and strengthen the professional 
capacity of our staff and youth, and in many cases, we have leveraged 
these resources to unlock other private, public and nonprofit 
resources. By its nature, federal grants and resources have also given 
MA'O a platform from which we are able to connect with practitioners 
across the country and across the Pacific who are doing similar work in 
agriculture, food systems, youth leadership and community development.
    As we look at the next 5, 10 and 20 years, we see an urgent need to 
work from the baseline we have established in our first 20-some years, 
to dramatically scale up youth leadership, expand an agroecologically-
based food system and develop community-level knowledge capacity and 
strategies that are pono (just), sustainable and resilient. As our 
communities brace for the cascading impacts of the pandemic--
significant learning loss, loss of employment, cost of living increases 
and of course overwhelming physical and mental health issues, we must 
stay ahead of the curve and enhance our social programming. As an 
agricultural enterprise, we have also been meaningfully engaged in 
developing our response to climate change. Our farms' ability to pivot 
and implement these climate adaptations efficiently will be critical in 
meeting the community's looming food insecurity. In the next five years 
alone, MA'O plans to:

  Engage 500 more high school and after-school youth in 
        culturally informed, edu-preneurial, work based learning 
        experiences;

  Graduate 300 more Wai'anae youth with Certificates, 
        Associates Degrees and/or Bachelor's/Master's degrees;

  Create an additional 20 more sustaining jobs at MA'O, provide 
        placement to alumni in culturally and communally aligned 
        positions in community;

  Bring an additional 100-acres of fallow land into cultivation 
        with organic row crops, fruit orchards, agroforestry for 
        timber/fiber, as well as native and indigenous plants for 
        cultural and ceremonial purposes;

  Deliver 6 million more pounds of certified organic, fresh 
        fruits and vegetables to our community.

    The most prominent hurdles MA'O faces to scaling up are shared by 
many other Native Hawaiian farmers and 'aina-based (land-based) 
organizations (and likely faced by similarly positioned native governed 
organizations across the US) include:

  Food-Safety Certification and Compliance--the process is time 
        intensive, lots of paperwork to meet national standards.

  Wrap-Around Services and Resources- there is a lack of 
        accessible health, mental well-being, academic and family 
        support available post-Pandemic.

  Automation & Technology--there is a lack of technology and 
        process to achieve scale.

  Energy and Water Efficiency--there is a lack of access to 
        products/services, the infrastructure is cost prohibitive.

  Affordable Housing--there is a need for a stable workforce, 
        particularly for staff and families in rural and native 
        communities

    These are hurdles which require coordination, funding and 
partnership to overcome. MA'O and other Native Hawaiian-led 
organizations working in our food system are prepared to take on these 
challenges in partnership with federal agencies such as USDA, ANA and 
EDA. However, our commnunity's need and our capacity to create positive 
outcomes is often not matched in the federal programs we see being 
offered.
    For example, despite the fact that there are many individuals in 
our Hilo, Hawaii-based USDA office that are consistently responsive and 
supportive, just in the last 18-months, MA'O encountered the following 
experiences with USDA programs:

  USDA Rural Development (RD) Multi-Family Housing

        --Many strong agricultural communities throughout the State of 
        Hawai'i do not qualify based on RD's population thresholds 
        because Hawai'i is generally more densely populated than much 
        of the rest of the country. The 2020 census reports that the 
        average US population density is 93.8 persons per square mile. 
        Whereas in the State of Hawai'i, that figure is 226.6 persons 
        per square mile.

        --MA'O and other Native-led agricultural organizations are also 
        often disqualified from USDA and RD programs on the basis of 
        income. Across Honolulu county per capita income averages 
        $36,816 vs. $34,103 nationwide. While this may seem like our 
        residents are faring well, the reality is that these dollars do 
        not go far in our high-cost-of-living State. And, disparities 
        within communities are masked by data which does not 
        immediately account for the poverty that many Native Hawaiian 
        and Pacific Islander families bear while living in the same 
        neighborhoods as more affluent families.

        --Moreover, as a ``lender of last resort,'' RD's housing 
        related programs set an extremely high barrier to meet. As our 
        local banks and CDFIs have improved and expanded their 
        understanding of the needs of Native Hawaiian led, 'aina-based 
        organizations like MA'O, it is more possible to obtain 
        financing. However the interest rates at which that financing 
        is offered often makes projects infeasible, thus putting many 
        deserving rural, indegenous-serving projects in a position of 
        not being able to prove they cannot obtain financing in order 
        to access RD's programs, yet not being able to afford the 
        financing they can obtain.

  USDA High Energy Cost and Rural Energy for America Program 
        (REAP)

        --MA'O actively seeks support to add a PV array to our new 
        processing facility to offset the energy needs of the large 
        walk-in chiller and automated wash machinery within We not only 
        seek renewable energy not only for its alignment with MA'O's 
        'aina-based and sustainability values (our local utility 
        depends largely on coal-fired plants), but because such a 
        system will make our farm operations more resilient in facing 
        power outages caused by extreme weather and an aging utility 
        infrastructure. However, thresholds for utilities costs tied to 
        USDA energy programs eligibility leave these opportunities 
        barely out of reach. Meanwhile, the Bureau of Labor Statistics 
        lists household electricity costs per kWh in Honolulu county as 
        the highest among all locations reporting data. In fact, at 
        $.327/kWh, Honolulu's cost is more than double the national 
        average of $.142/kWh.

    We know there is precedent for redefining eligibility for USDA 
programs, and believe that this is necessary to create greater impact 
for a wide array of Native Hawaiian-led organizations in our state's 
food system.

  Reinstate the 2005 waiver Section 278-1-A-B-6 that allows any 
        community out of urban HNL to qualify for RD programs, while 
        also expanding it to all islands in the State (not just 
        Honolulu County, island of Oahu) see attached for copy of 2005 
        waiver. \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The information referred to has been retained in the Committee 
files.

  Allow Hawai'i USDA program applicants to use Department of 
        Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL) subdivision boundaries to help 
        define location eligibility to better target programs to 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        communities with high concentrations of Native Hawaiians.

  Expand the Substantially Underserved Trust Area (SUTA) 
        program to all USDA programs and specifically recognize 
        proximity to DHHL lands as eligibility for SUTA

    In terms of our broader experience with other programs such as ANA 
or EDA, the same general points of friction pose a challenge to MA'O to 
make the best use of the program resources and are likely barriers to 
many other Native Hawaiian-led organizations even attempting to access 
these programs at all:

  Reporting burden. For small Community Based Organizations 
        (CBO) like MA'O, there is often a misalignment of the RFP 
        expectations for reporting with the reality of time and 
        resources available for reporting. In the past, we have worked 
        to incorporate the program narrative reporting into our 
        workflow, however, financial reporting is still burdensome. 
        Since the pandemic, many of the reports have transitioned into 
        online reporting, however, the access to the portals, the 
        outreach/access to technical assistance, and the obsolete/
        duplicative processes are still areas they are working on.

  Scarce/scant resources to meet the RFP proposal criteria. To 
        be competitive, 'aina based organizations need access to 
        technical assistance during the proposal writing process. ANA 
        has an excellent model of TA/TTA Centers that are based 
        throughout the US that other agencies could note. Virtual 
        meetings have helped with access to TA but not necessarily with 
        the quality of services to build/develop a competitive 
        proposal.

  Staff turnover, understaffing. When we are lucky enough to 
        receive program funding, staff turnover and understaffing at 
        the federal agency often leaves us with inconsistent guidance 
        on program administration or reporting. We often have to 
        contend with long wait times for guidance and approvals, 
        hampering our ability to deliver outcomes effectively and 
        efficiently, and to meet the deadlines of the grants or loans 
        themselves.

    MA'O and our Native Hawaiian colleagues working in food systems 
across the State recognize there is always more we can do to improve 
our ability to qualify for these federal programs and to work 
collaboratively with federal agencies. We will continue to evolve and 
progress in our ability to be good stewards of these public resources, 
and--we humbly ask for your continued involvement, guidance, 
assistance, support and partnership in order to serve our native 
communities with excellence.
    On behalf of MA'O youth and staff, and many other 'aina based, 
Native Hawaiian Organizations, mahalo for your care and consideration 
of our testimony.

    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    Next, we have Gary Hennigh, the City Administrator of the 
City of King Cove, Alaska.

   STATEMENT OF GARY HENNIGH, CITY ADMINISTRATOR, KING COVE, 
                             ALASKA

    Mr. Hennigh. Good afternoon, Chairman Schatz, Vice Chair 
Murkowski, and members of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee.
    My name is Gary Hennigh, and I have been the City 
Administrator for King Cove, Alaska, for the last 32 years. 
King Cove is located 625 miles southwest of Anchorage, at the 
western end of the Alaska Peninsula, right before the start of 
the Aleutian Islands.
    King Cove was founded in 1911 when a Seattle-based fish 
company decided to locate a cod cannery on the shores of what 
is now King Cove on the tip of the Gulf of Alaska. Aleut people 
have been living in this are for more than 4,000 years.
    In 1949, King Cove was one of the first and smallest local 
municipal governments to incorporate in the territory of 
Alaska, 10 years before Alaska statehood. This decision was an 
early indication of the awareness by King Cove Aleuts that 
being part of a larger statewide governance network was very 
important.
    The majority of residents today are Aleuts with 
approximately 550 members of the Agdaagux Tribe and 50 members 
of the Belkofski Tribe. The King Cove Corporation created by 
the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act further solidified the 
community's desire to be economically and culturally linked to 
the rest of the State and the Pacific Northwest.
    Today, King Cove is one of Alaska's premier fishing 
communities, having two large harbors and one of the State's 
largest seafood processing plants. Residents maintain both an 
active commercial fisheries and subsistence lifestyle, and are 
very experienced living in harmony with the area's physical 
environment, which is a combination of rugged volcanic 
mountains, some of them active, earthquakes, melting glaciers, 
and relentless winds that will top 100 miles and hour many 
times throughout the year. However, on top of all this is a 
spectacular beauty that nature has bestowed on this very remote 
region of Alaska.
    Living in King Cove requires good human survival skills, 
resilience, and an understanding of the relationship between 
the natural and human environments. One such example in King 
Cove is that over the last three decades, the community has 
emerged as one of Alaska's premier rural renewable energy 
communities, where 85 percent of our annual electricity is 
created by our two run-of-the-river hydroelectric facilities. 
These two hydro facilities displace more than 300,000 gallons 
of fuel on an annual basis.
    These renewable energy accomplishments are a direct result 
of the long-established partnership between the two tribes in 
King Cove, the Village Corporation and the local government. 
Starting in the late 1980s, then-U.S. Senator Ted Stevens 
encouraged the community to actively explore and develop our 
first hydro facility based on feasibility work completed by the 
Army Corps of Engineers. Further adding to this encouragement 
and financial support was then-Alaskan Governor and former U.S. 
Secretary of Interior, Walter J. Hickel. And of course, our 
very own Senator Lisa Murkowski and Congressman Don Young have 
been great supporters and champions of our renewable energy 
accomplishments for over two decades now.
    Back in 1993, a $250,000 grant to the Agdaagux Tribe from 
the Department of Energy Tribal Energy Office was the initial 
financial catalyst to amass the necessary $5.7 million to 
construct our first hydro. King Cove was vey anxious to provide 
a 50-year no-cost lease for using 250 acres of their ANSCA land 
to site the facility, including the impound structures, two 
miles of access roads, powerhouse and a five-mile transmission 
line.
    This partnership is further accentuated by the reality that 
most King Cove residents are tribal members, shareholders of 
the for-profit corporation, and active members of the city's 
municipal government. The community has long since established 
the awareness and necessity of working together to achieve 
community sustainability.
    The next step in the evolution of renewable energy in King 
Cove is to begin selling our significant amount of surplus 
hydro power to the community's seafood processor. This 
additional revenue will allow the city to further reduce the 
city's current kilowatt hour electric costs, further reduce 
energy production costs for the seafood processor, and remove 
additional carbon emissions from our environment.
    In summary, our working partnership with the two tribes and 
the King Cove Corporation have been an excellent model for King 
Cove in achieving renewable energy independence. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Hennigh follows:]

  Prepared Statement of Gary Hennigh, City Administrator, King Cove, 
                                 Alaska
    Dear Chairman Schatz, Ranking Member Murkowski and Members of the 
Senate Indian Affairs Committee,
    Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony on ``Buy 
Native American: Federal Support for Native Business Capacity'' 
hearing. My name is Gary Hennigh and I have been the City Administrator 
for King Cove, Alaska for the last 32 years. I would like to share a 
very successful story of renewable energy development in a rural Alaska 
community involving its local government, a Native Tribe, and a for-
profit Village corporation.
    King Cove is the 32nd largest community in Alaska with a population 
of 950 residents. The community is located 625 miles southwest of 
Anchorage at the western end of the Alaska Peninsula--right before the 
start of the Aleutian Islands. King Cove was founded in 1911 when a 
Seattle-based fish company decided to locate a cannery there on the 
northern shores of the Gulf of Alaska and adjacent the Bering Sea. 
Aleuts had already been living in this area for the past 4,000 years.
    In 1949, King Cove was one of the first, and smallest, local 
municipal governments to incorporate in the Territory of Alaska--ten 
years before Alaska Statehood. This decision was an early indication of 
the awareness of King Cove Aleuts that being part of a larger statewide 
governance network would be very important.
    The majority of residents today are Aleuts with approximately 550 
members of the Agdaagux Tribe and 50 members of the Belkofski Tribal 
Council. The King Cove Corporation (KCC), created by the Alaska Native 
Claims Settlement Act (ANSCA) in 1971, further solidified the 
community's desire to be economically linked and active throughout the 
region and State.
    Today, King Cove is one of Alaska's premier fishing communities 
having two large boat harbors and one of the State's largest seafood 
processing plants. Residents maintain both an active commercial 
fisheries and subsistence lifestyle. They are experienced living in 
harmony with the location's natural and physical environment, which is 
a combination of rugged, volcanic mountains (some active), earthquakes, 
melting glaciers and relentless winds that will top 100 mph many times 
throughout the year. However, on top of all this is a spectacular 
beauty that nature has bestowed on this very remote region of Alaska!
    Living and prospering in this area requires good human survival 
skills, great resilience and having an understanding of the 
relationships between the physical and human environments. One such 
example is that King Cove, over the last three decades, has emerged as 
one of Alaska's premier rural renewable energy communities where 85 
percent of our annual electricity is created by two very successful, 
run-of-the-river hydroelectric facilities.
    These renewable energy accomplishments are a direct result of the 
long-established partnership between the two tribes in King Cove, the 
KCC, and the local government. Starting back in the late 1980's, then-
U.S. Senator, Ted Stevens, encouraged the community to actively explore 
and develop our first hydro facility, Delta Creek. The potential for 
developing this hydro facility was initially based on feasibility work 
completed by the Army Corp of Engineers in the mid-1980's. Further 
adding to this initial encouragement and financial support was then-
Alaska Governor and former U.S. Secretary of Interior, Walter J. 
Hickel. And of course, our very own United States Senator, Lisa 
Murkowski, and Congressman Don Young have been strong advocates for our 
two hydro projects and have personally visited King Cove to observe 
them in operation.
    Back in 1993, a $250,000 grant to the Agdaagux Tribe from the 
Department of Energy's Tribal Energy Office was the initial financial 
catalyst to amass the $5.7 million needed to construct our first hydro 
site using Delta Creek. The Tribe promptly transferred this grant to 
the city. The city also procured a 25-year loan for $2 million from the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture/Rural Development to help fund the 
project. And, KCC was quick to provide a 50-year, no-cost lease for 
approximately 100 acres of their ANSCA land to locate the facility, 
including two impound structures (i.e. small dams less than 10' high), 
two miles of access roads, powerhouse, and a 5-mile transmission line.
    This partnership is further accentuated by the fact that most King 
Cove residents are tribal members, shareholders of KCC, and active 
participants in the city's municipal government activates. The 
residents' long-time willingness to work together to achieve community 
sustainability and progress is quite remarkable.
    The next step in the evolution of renewable energy in King Cove is 
to begin selling our ``surplus'' hydro power to the community's large 
seafood processor. This additional revenue will allow the city to 
reduce its current kWh electric costs while reducing energy costs for 
the seafood processor and remove additional carbon emissions in our 
local environment. Our ultimate goal is to simply have the lowest 
electric kWh cost anywhere in Alaska! We believe this is achievable.
    Finally, the City may resume its earlier efforts to consider adding 
wind generation to our energy portfolio. We previously learned from a 
few years of collecting wind data, that King Cove has ``class 6 winds'' 
knowing that anything over class 3 winds are commercially viable. We 
also know that we have the potential for another hydro facility in the 
Delta Creek Valley. Our pursuit of these possibilities will continue in 
partnership with our Tribes and KCC. The possibility of another grant 
from DOE's Tribal Energy Office to begin exploring these options will 
be pursued.
    In summary, the city's partnerships with the Agdaagux and Belkofski 
Tribes and KCC have been an excellent model in our quest, and results, 
for renewable energy independence. Attachment A provides additional 
background information regarding our renewable success in King Cove.
    Thank you.

    Attachment A

    The following testimony was provided by King Cove City Mayor, 
Warren Wilson, to the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources on January 11, 2022. This testimony furthers details the 
history of success that the City of King Cove, and its partners the 
Agdaagux Tribe of King Cove and King Cove Corporation (created by the 
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act) have experienced with renewable 
energy production and our reliance on it for the past 28 years in our 
remote and rugged environment at the western end of the Alaska 
Peninsula, which is 625 air miles southwest of Anchorage. A few minor 
edits have been made subsequent to filing this testimony with the 
Committee.
    Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on the 
opportunities and challenges for maintaining existing hydropower 
capacity, expanding hydropower at non-powered dams, and increasing 
pumped storage hydropower. The role of hydropower in our nation's 
energy mix is more important than ever, particularly in rural Alaska.
    I am very pleased to report that the City of King Cove is truly a 
leader in remote/rural Alaska hydropower! King Cove's municipal 
electric utility generates about 85 percent of its annual electricity 
demand of approximately 4.5MWh from two, small run-of-the-river hydro 
facilities. We have worked long and hard to achieve this success and 
are very proud of our accomplishments.
    Our first hydro facility, Delta Creek, came online in December 
1994. From that time through mid 2017, Delta Creek was producing at 
least 50 percent of the community's electricity demand. As we learned 
more about this facility and observed its excellent performance, we 
started to investigate the feasibility of developing another adjacent 
source of water to compliment this facility. We further learned that 
another hydro project would have bring a significant cost advantage by 
being able to share/benefit some of the Delta Creek investment in 
transmission lines and expanding the hydro powerhouse where our 
generator and turbine are located.
    Then, our second hydro facility, Waterfall Creek, came online in 
June 2017. This hydro is about 60-70 percent the size/capability of 
Delta Creek. They operate together in great harmony. Together, these 
two hydro facilities are displacing over 300,000 gallons of diesel fuel 
on an annual basis, as well as eliminating a substantial amount of 
carbon emissions in our community. This is a big deal in helping to 
provide substantial cost savings to our municipal utility and our 
community. We are saving our residential customers about a $1,000 
annually in electric costs.
    We also have approximately 1.5 MWh of ``surplus hydro'' that we are 
now expecting to soon start selling to the local fish processing plant 
in King Cove. Currently, this large processing facility, New Peter Pan 
Seafoods, has their own independent diesel system. They are very 
interested in purchasing this surplus hydro and reducing their reliance 
on diesel-generated energy. This next chapter in the evolution of 
renewable energy reliance at the western end of the Alaska Peninsula is 
exciting.
    Next, I would like to briefly summarize the key cost and financial 
operating parameters of these two hydro facilities.

  Delta Creek--cost $5.7 million (1993/94). This project was 
        funded through a variety of sources including a U.S. Dept of 
        Energy/Indian Tribal grant ($250,000); local government grants 
        ($750,000); State of Alaska grants ($2.8 million); and USDA/RD 
        ($1.9 million). The 25-year loan from USDA/RD was paid in full 
        in 2019.

  Waterfall Creek--cost $6.5 million (2015/2017). This project 
        was also funded through a variety of sources including the 
        State of Alaska Renewable Energy Funds grants ($2.8 million), 
        local government grants & cash of $500,000, and $3.1 long-term 
        debt from the Alaska Municipal Bond Bank and Alaska Energy 
        Authority's Power Project Fund.

    The King Cove electric rate is $0.30/kWh. While this rate is about 
2\1/2\ times more than the average kWh rate throughout the Lower 48, it 
is the ``cheapest'' non-subsidized rate of electricity in rural Alaska. 
And, the good news for King Cove is that we expect to soon be in a 
position to further lower this rate by possibly as much as \1/3\ due to 
the cost savings now accruing from our initial investments in renewable 
energy.
    I would also like to note that in 1995 our Delta Creek project 
received the Grand Award from the American Consulting Engineers for 
``excellence in engineering and design'' and then in 2017 Delta Creek 
was selected as one of the 13 small hydro projects worldwide to be 
profiled in the ``Good Practice Report'' prepared by the International 
Energy Agency. Finally in September 2017at the Arctic Energy Summit in 
Helsinki, Finland, King Cove was selected for the ``Best Practice 
Award'' for community renewable energy independence. These 
acknowledgements reinforce that our past decisions (and risk) to invest 
in renewable energy were the right decisions to make.
    In summary, the City of King Cove proudly suggests that our 
experience and success with these two, small run-of-the-river hydro 
facilities can be used as a positive model to follow for other small, 
rural communities throughout the United States. I encourage you, 
Chairman Manchin and the other ENR Committee members, to encourage 
these types of small hydro projects as excellent examples of renewable 
energy that can be accomplished in balance with the physical and human 
environments.

    The Chairman. Thank you to all of our witnesses.
    Before I get into my questions, I want to let the witnesses 
who are all across the Country know that our Federal witnesses 
don't have to be here anymore, but are all sitting in the 
audience taking notes. I think that speaks to their commitment. 
I appreciate your and your spouses who you have probably texted 
to say, I will be late for dinner. The sacrifice you are making 
and the commitment to learning from Native people across the 
Country is exemplary. It shows a real commitment to these 
issues. I just wanted to appreciate that.
    Ms. Maunakea-Forth. we both know that Hawaii's unique 
characteristics are not always understood by especially Federal 
agencies and lawmakers, which can lead to serious disparities 
in access. A couple of examples I have heard about that I would 
like you to speak to, grant funding depending on the definition 
of rural, which you have made reference to, Federal loan 
eligibility hinging on the ability to qualify for private 
financing, and then the eligibility criteria may not account 
for the high cost of really everything in the State of Hawaii. 
I am wondering if you could help us to illuminate these unique 
challenges for Hawaii.
    Ms. Maunakea-Forth. Certainly. Thank you for the question. 
I guess we do need to discuss retooling the definition of 
rural. Because I think there is so much nuance in that.
    Again, we have a great team out here that is willing to 
work with us to make those eligibility criteria and maximize 
and optimize that for the organizations that are really at the 
grassroots, helping to uplift the entire community. By 
uplifting our Native Hawaiian community, which is the most 
vulnerable, it uplifts the entire community.
    For us, just being a Native-rooted organization, sometimes 
we are seen as competitive. But really, I think what you were 
speaking about, this collective effort could be a role that our 
Federal agencies play in bringing some of the information and 
the people and the resources that can help us to be more 
organized around the priorities and really try to make the 
systemic changes not just in the process but also the workflow.
    I did want to mention that out here we have the Department 
of Hawaiian Homelands. That is one of the agencies that we 
believe can help us to unlock some of the policies in a local 
context, at a local level. We are also looking at it widely and 
expanding the SUTA. I think that is something that there is a 
local group that is coming together to help us to retool.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much. I will just observe 
that, I don't see it in any of the three Federal witnesses, but 
there is an intuition that Native Hawaiians don't qualify for 
certain programs. It is true that Native Hawaiians don't 
qualify for certain programs because they are not a federally 
recognized tribe.
    But it is fewer than you think, because we have a trust 
responsibility, the Federal Government has a trust 
responsibility with Native Hawaiians. I want that to flow 
through every agency and every person who administers a program 
that has heretofore not serviced the Native Hawaiian community 
needs to be asked whether they are citing to some statute or 
just simply a habit and an assumption.
    What I see in the three of you are people who are committed 
to sorting out that which can only be fixed by Congress and 
that which is just a bad habit and an assumption about who is 
eligible and who is not. I really appreciate that.
    Ms. Holden, we have heard about the challenges that Native 
businesses face when trying to obtain credit from private 
lenders who are unfamiliar with tribal tax nuances, Native 
crops and reservation structures. How do we help? How do we 
bridge the gap between Native businesses and private finance?
    Ms. Holden. Thank you so much, Senator, for that question. 
As you all know, much of Indian Country is considered a credit 
desert. There aren't enough financial institutions willing to 
lend capital to Native Americans. Particularly in the space of 
ag lending, sometimes as you said it can be for a lack of 
knowledge on the part of the lending institution about how to 
collateralize trust land, which can be collateralized, but it 
is a common misnomer that it cannot be. Or perhaps folks are 
unfamiliar with the types of agriculture that our producers are 
engaging in, because it might not be the traditional cows and 
corn that lending institutions are more used to and more 
comfortable with.
    In this regard, it is a lot about trying to educate lending 
institutions, both private and Federal, about what it looks 
like to do agriculture in Indian Country, and what kind of 
credit access our producers need. It also looks like 
strengthening Native community development financial 
institutions, or CDFIs. There are a lot of CDFIs across Indian 
Country who are doing some phenomenal work, particularly in the 
age lending space.
    Also, something that the Native Farm Bill Coalition, of 
which the IAC is a founding member, asked for in the 2018 Farm 
Bill was actually a GAO report on access to agriculture credit 
across Indian Country, not just through FSA or through USDA, 
but the private institutions as well. We didn't get that. We 
got a look at access to ag lending credit through the farm 
credit system, which will useful does not capture the 
disparities in access to credit in the same way that the 
original report we asked for would have. So I think having this 
data in hand would also be extremely important for any reforms 
that we would like to see going forward.
    USDA plays an enormous role in closing the credit gap for 
tribal communities. We would love to see continuing reforms at 
USDA to ensure that tribal producers are able to walk into 
tehri local FSA offices and be serviced in the way that any 
other individual would be.
    These are just a couple of the ways that I really 
appreciate your bringing up this access to credit question.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Holden. Can you send us a 
letter giving us a little bit of guidance on what needs to 
happen next? I can understand this problem conceptually. I am 
not exactly sure what we need to do next, and I think you do 
know. So please give us some instructions here, and we will 
take it under advisement.
    Ms. Holden. Absolutely.
    The Chairman. Mr. Willie, we worked hard during CARES and 
ARPA and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to secure robust 
funding for physical infrastructure. But here is my question. 
Beyond funding, what should Congress and the Administration do 
to support on-reservation business development?
    Mr. Willie. Thank you for that, Mr. Chair, and members of 
the Committee.
    As far as the question for the Navajo Nation's concern, 
much of the funds that were designated for use were geared 
toward those specific things such as infrastructure. Now the 
many things that we face with our businesses, I just gone done 
with a few consultations this morning, reflects the fact that 
much of our businesses here on Navajo have entered into a 
business lease with us. However, the ownership of those leases 
and that land is not in the possession of the entrepreneur. 
Therefore, when advancements are made on their behalf, it 
becomes ownership of the Navajo Tribe.
    Of course, we can make those changes here within the leases 
to set back and pay back the lease in some way to them, but 
that is over a long-term time for these leases. We are looking 
to 25-, 50-year, 100-year leases in some cases.
    Therefore, eliminating some of those deficiencies that I 
also highlighted in my submitted testimony to you, and also to 
reflect that some of these polices have been hindering us as 
far as the ownership of some of these land statuses. Navajo 
Nation, of course, as we know is unique as far as different 
land statuses of both the States that we occupy, New Mexico and 
Arizona, in all contexts.
    That concludes my response, Mr. Chair.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to 
turn to Mr. Hennigh. I appreciated, Gary, what you have 
outlined in terms of how these run-of-the-river hydro projects 
have made a community more sustainable, but also allow for some 
growth opportunity. If you are the processor there, and your 
power costs are so high you can't afford the cold storage, you 
don't have much opportunity to do much in terms of business 
development.
    So you have not only had the one hydro project, but you 
have both Delta and the waterfall hydro project. So you have 
kind of lived through the gauntlet of how you access support 
through the agencies, through DOE, through their loan 
guarantee.
    Can you give any insight to the Committee in terms of the 
things that were helpful and good to build out these renewable 
energy projects, or the known barriers there? Can you speak a 
little bit to the experience there?
    Mr. Hennigh. Sure, thank you, Senator Murkowski, for that 
question. I think the working relationship that the local 
government, again being dominated by Aleuts, along with the two 
tribes and the King Cove Corporation, together felt like we can 
find the solutions to fund these projects. If we are successful 
in developing them, that who knows what the future might hold.
    What that is trying to say is now with the new owners of 
the seafood processing plant in King Cove, they want to 
purchase the surplus power that we have now. But they also 
know, like the city, that we have the potential for a third 
hydro facility along with knowing that we have class six winds. 
For those of you who are familiar with wind generation, 
anything over a class three wind is commercially viable.
    So the new owners of the seafood processing company, the 
two tribe, the King Cove Corporation and the city are now all 
looking at taking yet another step to add more renewable 
energy. Not so much that we need it for the residential part of 
the community, but for the industrial part of the community. So 
our economic survival with greater processing at the seafood 
plant that can be done by renewable energy can be another win-
win for the community, for the fishermen, for the processors, 
and for all the people who get to eat the wonderful products 
that come from this very remote region of Alaska.
    Senator Murkowski. So, clear benefit with regard to 
building out the economy. But in terms of impediments that you 
had insofar as accessing the necessary capital to move forward, 
can you speak a little bit to that?
    Mr. Hennigh. Sure. Our ability to access capital for the 
two hydro projects was fairly reasonable in terms of the 
process we had to go through. Certainly with your support, 
Senator Murkowski, and Congressman Young's, we were able to 
work with the Department of Agriculture, the rural development 
folks back in the early 1990s. Early on, we thought that 
process was going to be very difficult. But it turned out to be 
a fairly smooth process.
    So that has given us the incentive to believe that as long 
as we have a good business plan and that we can show the 
results that we can now show, that our ability to find the next 
level of capital funding for more renewable energy development 
should not be insurmountable that we can't make it happen. We 
are very positive that our experience gives us the potential 
and the lenders the comfort of knowing that we know what we are 
doing when it comes to harnessing Mother Nature.
    Senator Murkowski. Thank you. You have demonstrated that. 
Thank you.
    I wanted to ask a quick question, probably to Ms. Maunakea-
Forth, and possibly to Ms. Holden as well. This is about the 
microgrants for food security program. It is something that I 
had worked really hard to get into the last Farm Bill. We have 
seen great success in the State of Alaska. These are small, 
small loans, that is why we call them microgrants. So it is not 
for big ag by any extent.
    What we are trying to do in Alaska is reintroduce farming, 
growing your own food, this whole concept of food security. The 
daunting thought of a big project, big agriculture, is too much 
for so many. But you have to get started somewhere. So whether 
it is seeds or whether it is the high tunnels to allow for a 
longer growing season, whether it is fencing to keep the moose 
out so they don't eat your crops, these have been hugely, 
hugely important.
    Can either one of you share with me whether these 
microgrants are something that you feel are helpful? I know 
that they are already oversubscribed with the funding that we 
have appropriated.
    Ms. Maunakea-Forth. I would love to say that we were a 
beneficiary, but I am just glad that that program is 
oversubscribed. Yay! Our MA'O has always been invested in young 
people. So today, we have over 90 people reconnecting to their 
lands, learning agri-ecological practices, understanding the 
[phrase in Native tongue], the deeper reason of their why, 
their purpose, through language, through [phrase in Native 
tongue], through hula. To be able to create that future 
ancestor that understands the foods that come from their work 
and their intention to feed, that is really the gift.
    So whatever we can to do to [phrase in Native tongue] other 
organizations, and we do work with several tribes, and also 
several of the programs that have initiated and studied by many 
of you here on the call today, that is where I think we need to 
continue to work, helping to elevate our youth to be a part of 
this. Mahalo.
    Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. If there are no more questions for our 
witnesses, members may also submit follow-up questions for the 
record. The hearing record will be open for two weeks. I want 
to thank all of their witnesses for their time and their 
testimony.
    This hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 5:42 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                            A P P E N D I X

 Prepared Statement of the United South and Eastern Tribes Sovereignty 
                            Protection Fund
    The United South and Eastern Tribes Sovereignty Protection Fund 
(USET SPF) is pleased to provide the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs 
(SCIA) with the following testimony for the record of the March 16, 
2022 oversight hearing, ``Buy Native American: Federal Support for 
Native Business Capacity Building and Success.'' During the 2022 State 
of the Union Address, President Biden renewed his Administration's 
commitment to the `Buy American' initiative, which was established by 
the January 2021 Executive Order 14005, ``Ensuring the Future is Made 
in All of America by All of America's Workers'' (EO 14005). EO 14005 
was issued to ensure that the federal government would invest taxpayer 
funds to support American businesses, workers, and manufacturers. 
However, the `Buy American' initiative has not necessarily recognized 
and supported the contributions and production of goods and services by 
Tribal Nations and our businesses. The federal government must support 
our self-determined and sovereign rights to pursue initiatives for 
economic development that rebuild Tribal Nation economies.
    For the `Buy American' initiative to be successful, federal 
departments and agencies must remove regulatory barriers that hinder 
our ability to create economic opportunity for our businesses and 
entrepreneurs. This can be accomplished by broadening 638 self-
determination compacting and contracting opportunities for Tribal 
Nations and utilizing `Buy American' to purchase goods and services 
from Tribal Nations and businesses. This will support Tribal Nations 
and businesses to rebuild our economies and empower our initiatives to 
rebuild economic development and opportunity for our citizens. 
Additionally, the federal government must support Tribal economic 
parity by protecting our businesses from dual taxation, the restoration 
of Tribal homelands, and provide accessible opportunities for energy 
production and distribution.
    USET Sovereignty Protection Fund (USET SPF) is a non-profit, inter-
tribal organization advocating on behalf of thirty-three (33) federally 
recognized Tribal Nations from the Northeastern Woodlands to the 
Everglades and across the Gulf of Mexico. \1\ USET SPF is dedicated to 
promoting, protecting, and advancing the inherent sovereign rights and 
authorities of Tribal Nations and in assisting its membership in 
dealing effectively with public policy issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ USET SPF member Tribal Nations include: Alabama-Coushatta Tribe 
of Texas (TX), Catawba Indian Nation (SC), Cayuga Nation (NY), 
Chickahominy Indian Tribe (VA), Chickahominy Indian Tribe-Eastern 
Division (VA), Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana (LA), Coushatta Tribe of 
Louisiana (LA), Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians (NC), Houlton Band of 
Maliseet Indians (ME), Jena Band of Choctaw Indians (LA), Mashantucket 
Pequot Indian Tribe (CT), Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe (MA), Miccosukee 
Tribe of Indians of Florida (FL), Mi'kmaq Nation (ME), Mississippi Band 
of Choctaw Indians (MS), Mohegan Tribe of Indians of Connecticut (CT), 
Monacan Indian Nation (VA), Nansemond Indian Nation (VA), Narragansett 
Indian Tribe (RI), Oneida Indian Nation (NY), Pamunkey Indian Tribe 
(VA), Passamaquoddy Tribe at Indian Township (ME), Passamaquoddy Tribe 
at Pleasant Point (ME), Penobscot Indian Nation (ME), Poarch Band of 
Creek Indians (AL), Rappahannock Tribe (VA), Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe 
(NY), Seminole Tribe of Florida (FL), Seneca Nation of Indians (NY), 
Shinnecock Indian Nation (NY), Tunica-Biloxi Tribe of Louisiana (LA), 
Upper Mattaponi Indian Tribe (VA) and the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head 
(Aquinnah) (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Economic Development in Indian Country and the USET SPF Region
    Prior to European contact, Tribal Nations, including our members, 
had a long history of dynamic economies and governance structures. 
Robust trade networks connected Tribal Nations and the goods we 
produced. As with other aspects of Tribal governance and 
infrastructure, the removal, termination, and assimilation policies of 
the United States government negatively impacted our traditional 
economic trade. Over the course of centuries, Tribal Nations ceded 
millions of acres of land and extensive resources to the U.S.--
oftentimes by force--in exchange for which it is legally and morally 
obligated to provide benefits and services in perpetuity. Because of 
this historic and ongoing diplomatic relationship, the federal 
government has trust and treaty obligations to support Tribal self-
governance and self-determination, along with rebuilding Tribal Nations 
and economies. Unfortunately, at no point has the federal government 
fully delivered upon and upheld these obligations.
    In addition to being relegated to fractions of our original 
homelands, which can be in remote areas, Tribal Nations lack 
governmental parity in economic development opportunities and treatment 
under the U.S. tax code. The Federal Reserve Board of Governor's 2012 
report, Growing Economies in Indian Country, outlined eight issues as 
fundamental challenges to realizing economic growth in Indian Country. 
USET SPF's member Tribal Nations, with few exceptions, face these same 
challenges, such as:

        1. Insufficient access to capital;

        2. Capacity and capital constraints of small business;

        3. Insufficient workforce development, financial management 
        training, and business education;

        4. Tribal governance constraints;

        5. Regulatory constraints on land held in trust and land 
        designated as restricted use;

        6. Underdeveloped physical infrastructure;

        7. Insufficient research and data; and

        8. Lack of regional collaboration

    All Tribal Nations, especially USET SPF member Tribal Nations, vary 
in levels of economic activity, capacity, and development. Some Tribal 
Nations have decades of experience and familiarity with economic 
development initiatives, while some are just starting to pursue these 
initiatives. This diversity demands that federal policy not adopt a 
one-size-fits all approach in supporting Tribal Nations and businesses 
to pursue economic development initiatives to support our communities 
and engage in nation rebuilding.
Expand `Buy American' to Include `Buy Indian' Across the Federal 
        Government
    We appreciate SCIA's effort to examine the barriers Tribal Nations 
and businesses experience in accessing financial capital and 
marketplaces to produce and distribute Native goods, resources, and 
services. The `Buy American' initiative must recognize Tribal Nations 
and businesses as economic development partners and direct federal 
agencies to actively purchase products manufactured, harvested, and 
produced by Native businesses and entrepreneurs. Furthermore, the `Buy 
American' initiative should be expanded to include federal government 
purchasing priorities outlined by the Department of Health and Human 
Services and Department of the Interior's `Buy Indian Act' (`Buy 
Indian') regulations. More effective and expanded implementation of 
`Buy Indian' regulations should be included in the `Buy American' 
initiative and implemented across the federal government to ensure that 
all departments and agencies are prioritizing the purchase of goods and 
services from Tribal Nations and our businesses. This will support 
President Biden's `Buy American' initiative and empower Tribal Nations 
and businesses to pursue economic development opportunities.
    In June 2021, the Department of the Interior (DOI) hosted Tribal 
consultations on proposed revisions to its `Buy Indian Act' regulations 
to increase contract preferences for Indian Small Business Economic 
Enterprises (ISBEEs) and Indian Economic Enterprises (IEEs). Proposed 
revisions also included updates on subcontracting to ensure consistency 
with Federal Acquisition Regulations and an update to the process for 
deviating from the `Buy Indian Act' to ensure greater preference for 
IEEs. USET SPF submitted comments in support of DOI's proposed 
revisions to fulfill the intent of the law and recommended the 
expansion of the Act's provisions across the whole of the federal 
government. We reiterated these recommendations to the Department of 
Health and Human Services (HHS) in response to its November 2020 
rulemaking to update the department's `Buy Indian' regulations. In 
addition to expanding `Buy Indian' across the federal government, USET 
SPF also recommended that DOI and HHS increase internal accountability, 
communication, and compliance protocols to document and report on 
anticipated, pending, and completed ISBEE and IEE solicitations. 
Furthermore, we recommended that DOI and HHS develop ongoing evaluation 
mechanisms for `Buy Indian' implementation by hosting annual Tribal 
Listening Sessions to receive feedback on successes and challenges with 
the Act's implementation. Federal agencies adopting `Buy Indian' 
regulations should also include these recommendations to ensure the 
purpose and intent of the law is meaningfully implemented to support 
Tribal Nations and our businesses.
Ensure Tribal Nation Economic Parity
    With nearly every aspect of economic development regulated by the 
federal government, economic progress in Indian Country is often 
stymied with legal and regulatory burdens on Tribal Nations and 
businesses. These burdens have contributed to a perpetual cycle of 
social and economic hardships in our communities. Congress and the 
Administration must work to free Tribal Nations from over-burdensome 
laws and regulations that impede our social and economic success. This 
is especially important in an environment of the federal government's 
failures to uphold trust and treaty obligations to fully fund programs 
and services for Indian Country. Similar to other governments, Tribal 
Nations provide vital services to our people, which are funded by 
revenues generated by our businesses. The federal government, as well 
as state governments, should recognize and uphold Tribal Nation 
sovereignty and self-determination to pursue these economic development 
initiatives. These include efforts to support Native producers.
    As it is for any other sovereign, economic sovereignty is essential 
to our ability to be self-determining and self-sufficient. The 
rebuilding of our Tribal Nation economies involves the rebuilding of 
our Tribal economies as a core foundation of healthy and productive 
communities. Building strong, vibrant, and mature economies is more 
than just business development. It requires comprehensive planning to 
ensure that our economies have the necessary infrastructure, services, 
and opportunities for our citizens to thrive. This results in stronger 
Tribal Nations and a stronger America.
    The U.S. government has a responsibility to ensure that federal tax 
law treats Tribal Nations in a manner consistent with our sovereign 
governmental status, as reflected under the U.S. Constitution and 
numerous federal laws, treaties, and federal court decisions. With this 
in mind, we remain focused on the advancement of tax reform that would 
address inequities in the tax code and eliminate state dual taxation. 
Revenue generated within Indian Country continues to be taken outside 
our borders or otherwise falls victim to a lack of parity. Similarly, 
Tribal governments continue to lack many of the same benefits and 
flexibility offered to other units of government under the tax code. 
USET SPF continues to press Congress for changes to the U.S. tax code 
that would provide governmental parity and economic development to 
Tribal Nations.
    This includes support for H.R. 4054, the Tribal Tax and Investment 
Reform Act, introduced by Representative Ron Kind on June 22, 2021. 
H.R. 4054 would specify the treatment of Tribal Nations as states with 
respect to bond issuance, modify the treatment of pension and employee 
benefit plans maintained by a Tribal Government, modify the treatment 
of Tribal foundations and charities, improve the effectiveness of 
Tribal child support enforcement agencies, and recognize Tribal 
governments for purposes of determining whether a child has special 
needs eligible for the adoption tax credit.
Protect Tribal Nations from Dual Taxation
    Dual taxation hinders Tribal Nations from achieving our own revenue 
generating potential. Although Tribal Nations have authority to tax 
noncitizens doing business in Indian Country, when other jurisdictions 
can tax those same noncitizens for the same transactions, Tribal 
Nations must lower their taxes to keep overall pricing at rates the 
market can bear or forgo levying a tax at all. The application of an 
outside government's tax often makes the Tribal tax economically 
unfeasible.
    Dual taxation undercuts the ability of Tribal Nations to offer tax 
incentives to encourage non-Indian business entities onto our lands to 
create jobs and stimulate Tribal economies. As long as outside 
governments tax non-Indian businesses on our lands--even if a Tribal 
government offers complete Tribal tax immunity to attract a new non-
Indian business--that business is subject to the same state tax rate 
that is applicable outside our jurisdictional boundaries. As a matter 
of economic fairness, we ask that you work with us to support and 
advance initiatives that would bring certainty in tax jurisdiction to 
Tribal Lands by confirming the exclusive, sovereign authority of Tribal 
governments to assess taxes on all economic activities occurring within 
our jurisdictional boundaries.
Support Tribal Nation and Business Development in the Energy Sector
    USET SPF member Tribal Nations, and our respective Tribal Lands and 
energy resources, are located within a large region that presents 
diverse geographical environments and opportunities for both 
conventional and renewable energy development. Our member Tribal 
Nations could benefit from the unlocked potential of those energy 
resources and realize energy development goals through appropriate 
Congressional and administrative action and investment in Indian 
Country, particularly to promote balanced geographical representation 
and inclusion of USET SPF member Tribal Nations in energy programs. 
USET SPF has established its energy priorities, as follows:

  Promote Tribal self-determination and control of natural 
        resources and energy assets to make conservation and 
        development decisions that preserve Tribal sovereignty, protect 
        Tribal assets, and achieve economic independence, job creation, 
        and improvement of Tribal members' standard of living;

  Promote Tribal capacity building efforts involving multiple 
        federal agencies, universities, and the private sector;

  Reform core federal programs, expertise, and funding to 
        support Tribal energy resource development and market access; 
        and

  Remove barriers to the deployment of Tribal energy resources, 
        such as bureaucratic processes, insufficient access to 
        financial incentives, and interconnection to and transmission 
        on the power grid.

    Enacting legislation and developing regulations to support these 
initiatives will advance the energy capabilities of Tribal Nations and 
translate into beneficial economic and health and wellness outcomes for 
our communities.
Restoration of Tribal Homelands
    Possession of a land base is a core aspect of sovereignty, cultural 
identity, and represents the foundation of a government's economy. That 
is no different for Tribal Nations. USET SPF Tribal Nations continue to 
work to reacquire our homelands, which are fundamental to our existence 
as sovereign governments and our ability to thrive as vibrant, healthy, 
self-sufficient communities. And as our partner in the trust 
relationship, it is incumbent upon the federal government to prioritize 
the restoration of our land bases. The federal government's objective 
in the trust responsibility and obligations to our Nations must be to 
support healthy and sustainable self-determining Tribal governments, 
which fundamentally includes the restoration of lands to all federally-
recognized Tribal Nations, as well as the legal defense of these land 
acquisitions. With this in mind, USET SPF continues to call for the 
immediate Senate consideration and passage of a fix to the Supreme 
Court decision in Carcieri v. Salazar.
Support Self-Governance Contracting and Compacting for Tribal Nations
    Tribal Nations are political, sovereign entities whose status stems 
from the inherent sovereignty we have as self-governing peoples that 
pre-dates the founding of the United States. The U.S. Constitution, 
treaties, statutes, Executive Orders, and judicial decisions all 
recognize that the federal government has a fundamental trust 
relationship to Tribal Nations, including the obligation uphold the 
right to self-government. Our federal partners must fully recognize the 
inherent right of Tribal Nations to fully engage in self-governance, so 
we may exercise full decisionmaking in the management of our own 
affairs and governmental services.
    Despite the success of Tribal Nations in exercising authority under 
the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA), as 
well as the recently enacted Practical Reforms and Other Goals to 
Reinforce the Effectiveness of Self-Governance and Self-Determination 
(PROGRESS) for Indian Tribes Act, the goals of self-governance have not 
been fully realized. Many opportunities still remain to improve and 
expand upon its principles. An expansion of Tribal self-governance to 
all federal programs under ISDEAA would be the next evolutionary step 
in the federal government's recognition of Tribal sovereignty and 
reflective of its full commitment to Tribal Nation sovereignty and 
self-determination.
    As was discussed during the hearing, this includes an expansion of 
ISDEAA into federal nutrition programs. The 2018 Farm Bill authorized a 
demonstration project for Tribal Nations to pursue 638 contract and 
compact opportunities under the Indian Self-Determination and Education 
Assistance Act (P.L. 93-638) for the U.S. Department of Agriculture's 
(USDA) Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR). This 
638 authority should be expanded to the Supplemental Nutrition 
Assistance Program (SNAP) and other vital federally administered 
nutrition programs. Tribal Nations, like other units of government, are 
responsible for providing essential services to our citizens, which 
includes those related to nutrition and health and wellness. Tribal 
Nations have demonstrated that we have the capacity to fully administer 
SNAP programs to Tribal citizens, as we have been administering far 
more complex federal programs for decades. However, and in spite of a 
2014 USDA feasibility study, Tribal Nations continue to be excluded 
from administering SNAP and other nutrition programs under P.L. 93-638 
contracting and compacting. USET SPF joins Tribal Nations and 
organizations across the country in calling upon SCIA and Congress to 
ensure that Tribal sovereignty and self-determination for federal 
nutrition programs is made a reality, including as part of the next 
Farm Bill reauthorization.
    In addition, we urge that P.L. 93-638 authority also be extended to 
forestry programs at USDA. When Tribal Nations manage our own forests, 
we are able to prioritize traditionally harvested plants and animals 
that provide vital elements of a healthy Indigenous diet.
Conclusion
    Economic insecurity in Indian Country is a symptom of the larger 
issues we face as Tribal Nations, due, in large part, to the failure of 
the U.S. government to live up to the terms of our diplomatic, Nation-
to-Nation relationship. Development and implementation of policies and 
programs that recognize and uphold our inherent sovereignty and fulfill 
trust and treaty obligations are necessary to alleviate economic 
hardship, rebuild Tribal Nations, and improve the quality of life for 
our citizens and communities. Congress must continue to support and 
fully fund federal programs that encourage economic development and the 
rebuilding of Tribal economies. We welcome the opportunity to 
collaborate with the Committee on economic policy that better honors 
federal trust and treaty obligations while upholding our inherent 
sovereignty.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Brian Schatz to 
                            Janie Simms Hipp
    Question 1. You testified that the Department of Agriculture has 
key information and expertise to contribute to the Department of the 
Interior's efforts to address impediments and barriers in the 
agricultural leasing space. What affirmative steps can be taken to 
ensure effective collaboration between the Department of Agriculture 
and the Department of the Interior on agricultural leasing and other 
issues of importance to Native communities?
    Answer. As the Department of the Interior (DOI) takes steps to 
amend the agricultural leasing template, U.S. Department of Agriculture 
(USDA) can provide technical assistance on contemporary agricultural 
practices, flexible language to support both traditional and western 
agricultural strategies, and opportunities for creating alignment with 
USDA programming. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service is also 
available to provide for conservation planning where otherwise required 
or recommended under these leases.
    One of the more important things we think we have identified is 
USDA building in flexibility into our processes when DOI-BIA is 
involved, and us asking DOI-BIA to build into all their forms 
flexibility and deference to USDA, to ensure our processes can evolve 
over time together.
    USDA would also like to work with BIA to promote the HEARTH Act 
process so more tribes can take control of their own leasing. 
Additionally, DOI and USDA collaborated to host three listening 
sessions last year that covered topics such as marketing, contracting, 
federal lands, and brucellosis.

    Question 2. What can the Department of Agriculture do to establish 
a Native purchasing preference in procurement for the Department? What 
support--if any--would the Department need from Congress to establish 
such a preference?
    Answer. USDA is looking into some existing treaty provisions but 
does not currently have independent statutory authority to pursue 
Native purchasing preferences in the Farm Bill. For example, Buy Indian 
applies to BIA and IHS but has not been extended to USDA, NMAI, or 
other federal agencies with an Indian Country procurement impact. USDA 
would welcome Congressional authorization of Indian purchasing 
preferences for federal food and nutrition programs directly and 
primarily serving Tribal nations and tribal citizen households.

    Question 3. To what extent is the Department of Agriculture 
partnering with other relevant agencies to obtain and share data to 
ensure Tribal policymaking efforts across all agencies are well-
informed and based on full and accurate data?
    Answer. In the March 2021 USDA tribal ``Consultation on Racial 
Equity/Barriers,'' tribal leaders requested USDA explore opportunities 
to utilize tribal data to inform tribal need and opportunities when 
submitting program applications. In particular our Rural Development 
tribal team has begun conversation with DOI regarding measurements of 
economic success and distress, and our Forest Service tribal team have 
begun conversation with DOI regarding measurements of land and treaty 
definitions.
    USDA staff participate regularly across the White House Council for 
Native American Affairs and its committees as applicable. This includes 
collaborating on specific goals of the committees as well as analyzing 
where agency needs overlap. We welcome additional cross agency 
collaboration on data as well as congressional action that would allow 
us to have additional flexibility in determining which data sets are 
appropriate to use, including self-reported data provided by Tribes.
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Ben Ray Lujan to 
                            Janie Simms Hipp
    Subject. USDA Agricultural Producer Procurement Programs, Food 
Distribution Program on Indian Reservations, ReConnect Program, Tribal 
Consultation Action Plan, Tribal Advisory Committee
    The Navajo Agricultural Products Industry, or NAPI, is a Native-
owned business in New Mexico established in 1970.
    NAPI participates in a state program called the Buy Local 
Initiative, which connects producers with food service companies and 
schools to integrate fresh, local and seasonal foods into children's 
school meals.
    Part of what made this program successful was not only the state's 
proactive outreach to Tribes and Tribal businesses from the get-go, but 
the intentional training and networking it fostered that allowed Native 
producers to build sustainable business models with partners and 
customers.
    Though NAPI has successfully navigated the 638 process through the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs to win contracts and is certified as a U.S. 
Department of Agriculture (USDA) food vendor, it has not participated 
in USDA's contract procurement process because of the barriers the 
program presents for Native producers.
    For example, USDA puts out a purchase announcement for approved 
USDA vendors to supply potatoes to three states over a six-month 
timeframe.
    Such commodity procurement processes essentially prevent Native 
producers like NAPI from participating, as many do not have the desired 
product in stock during the specified timeframe, have limited storage 
and transportation capacity, and each solicitation is not designed for 
small scale, local distribution or for seasonal and traditional foods.

    Question 1. Ms. Simms Hipp, what changes can USDA make to its 
commodity procurement process to improve access for more Native 
businesses like NAPI?
    Answer. USDA Agricultural Marketing Service has solicited non-
competitive cooperative agreements from state or tribal governments 
through the Local Food Purchase Assistance program. This program 
finances government purchases of food from underserved, including 
tribal producers, to distribute locally through their community. This 
program utilizes temporary funding made available using the American 
Rescue Plan Act.
    Without Congress authorizing ``Indian purchase'' preference for 
USDA, USDA is exploring some treaty provisions and additional 
flexibilities available through HUBZones, administered by the Small 
Business Administration, and related tribal interests. Following up on 
the March 2021 ``Consultation on Racial Equity/Barriers,'' USDA hosted 
a series of consultations addressing tribal equity from April 11-18. 
During the April 12th tribal equity consultation on ``Food, Safety, and 
Trade,'' USDA clarified with Tribal Leaders their interest on where 
USDA should prioritize small batch procurement, better suited to the 
size of tribal farms and food enterprises, and solicitations for 
indigenous foods.
    USDA is looking into some existing treaty provisions but does not 
currently have independent statutory authority to pursue Native 
purchasing preferences in the Farm Bill. For example, Buy Indian 
applies to BIA and IHS but has not been extended to USDA, NMAI, or 
other federal agencies with an Indian Country procurement impact. USDA 
would welcome Congressional authorization of Indian purchasing 
preferences for federal food and nutrition programs when they directly 
and primarily serve Tribal nations and tribal citizen households.

    Question 2. Ms. Simms Hipp, what would be the impact of a Native 
preference in USDA procurement processes should Congress authorize such 
a priority?
    Answer. Congressional authorization of Indian purchasing 
preferences for federal food and nutrition programs directly and 
primarily serving Tribal nations and tribal citizen households could 
have a significant positive economic development impact on Native 
producers and could result in an increase in local grown and indigenous 
foods in federal food packages.
    As with any locally grown and/or specialized food, however, local 
Native grown and produced foods are likely to have higher production 
costs and Congress may want to consider a price evaluation preference, 
such as with the HUBZone and other programs.

    Question 3. Ms. Simms Hipp, what are USDA's plans to sustain this 
program and integrate best practices into the Agricultural Marketing 
Services' commodity procurement process?
    Answer. USDA has utilized current authorities available under 
HUBZones, administered by the Small Business Administration (SBA), to 
provide for set asides in procurement and is looking to expand this 
use. Virtually all of Indian Country is eligible to qualify for a 
HUBZone designation. USDA is exploring how these flexibilities could 
apply for relevant procurement solicitations. To be eligible, an 
applicable Native food enterprise would need to be certified by SBA as 
a HUBZone and by AMS as a qualified vendor.

    Question 4. Ms. Simms Hipp, what would USDA need to implement a 
``Buy Indian'' initiative within USDA's commodity procurement process 
or within its Food and Nutrition Service programs?
    Answer. USDA is looking into some existing treaty provisions but 
does not currently have independent statutory authority to pursue 
Native purchasing preferences in the Farm Bill. For example, Buy Indian 
applies to BIA and IHS but has not been extended to USDA, NMAI, or 
other federal agencies with an Indian Country procurement impact. USDA 
would welcome Congressional authorization of Indian purchasing 
preferences for federal food and nutrition programs when they directly 
and primarily serve Tribal nations and tribal citizen households.

    Question 5. Ms. Simms Hipp, how is USDA looking to increase lending 
and investment opportunities for Native businesses, and how is it 
conducting proactive outreach to Tribes and Native enterprises?
    Answer. We have identified a few systemic barriers to access for 
tribes in our lending and investment opportunities that we are fixing. 
These include some internal and some statutory inconsistencies in how 
we categorize tribal government owned corporations and their 
eligibility. For these and other Rural Development eligibility 
criteria, USDA recognizes how the hybrid structure of tribal nation 
corporations, instrumentalities, and enterprises operate both for 
commercial and government purposes. USDA is currently reviewing Rural 
Development authorizations to ensure that these tribal entities are 
eligible for program funding as either/or both government and business 
interests as appropriate.
    A second area USDA is working on, is recognizing the lack of tribal 
government tax base and the need to build in matching and other 
financial flexibilities when possible. We began to address this 
challenge in our broadband programs. Though the ReConnect Round 3 
funding opportunity we included new flexibilities to provide Tribes 
with more attractive grant funding options to improve broadband 
infrastructure at a minimum 100Mps symmetrical service level. For 
projects intending to serve tribal lands or socially vulnerable 
communities as defined by the U.S. Center for Disease Control, USDA 
Rural Development offered grants of up to 100 percent for eligible 
project costs with zero (0) match required.
    Another example of matching flexibility was built into the Local 
Agricultural Marketing Programs (LAMP) administered by USDA 
Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) to support tribal nations and 
enterprises in developing or expanding agriculture and food systems. 
Under LAMP, the Farmers Market Promotion Program offers grant financing 
for direct, farm to consumer market channels; the Local Food Promotion 
Program supports intermediary distribution channels, including grocers; 
and the Regional Food System Partnership program offers funding for 
developing collaborative, regional models. These programs require a 25 
percent match per the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018. During this 
funding cycle, AMS transitioned from requiring a cash-match to allowing 
in-kind, providing tribes with additional flexibility in how they meet 
this eligibility criteria.
    Tribal nations have consistently raised matching requirements as a 
significant hurdle to our economic development programs. Many of our 
matching requirements are statutory. USDA welcomes Congress' guidance 
on future flexibility on matching requirements for tribal nations.
    USDA continues to conduct outreach directly to tribal nations and 
producers, both through electronic and in-person platforms such as 
conferences or tribal meetings and in collaboration with tribal 
organization partners to raise awareness on these and other USDA 
financing opportunities.

    Question 6. Ms. Simms Hipp, how much additional funding beyond the 
$2 million provided would USDA need expand this pilot program to more 
Tribes?
    Answer. In terms of cost, the maximum currently allowed in 2018 
Farm Bill legislation is $5 million. To-date, Congress has appropriated 
$3.0M each year from FY 2020 through FY 2022 for a total of $9.0M to 
support implementation of the Food Distribution Program on Indian 
Reservations (FDPIR) Self-Determination Demonstration Project. Given 
the initial success of the FDPIR 638 demonstration projects, tribal 
leaders have expressed an interest in not only continuing and expanding 
this program to include more tribes but also expressed an interest in 
institutionalizing this approach across FDPIR in its entirety.
    Such an approach would mean that there would not need to be a 
specific line item but all of FDPIR would be eligible. An Indian Tribal 
Organization implementing this program would have the option of either 
coordinating through the USDA Food and Nutrition Service to purchase 
and distribute foods or they could receive funding directly, in part or 
in full, from FNS for the tribe to administer this program directly for 
the benefit of their community. In this case, the tribe would purchase 
local or regional foods and stock their site for distribution 
accordingly.
    The total cost for this new approach would require research and 
would be more than the current FDPIR costs, due to loss of some cost 
efficiencies in consolidated national and bulk purchasing and 
additional administrative costs. But it is achievable. There are also 
possibilities of cost savings through factors like decreased 
transportation costs and tribal efficiencies seen in other self-
governance-like structures. This transition would also serve as an 
affirmation by the U.S. government of tribal sovereignty and be 
consistent with the oft stated goals of the tribal leaders.

    Question 7. Ms. Simms Hipp, what changes can USDA make to the pilot 
program to incorporate traditional foods from more Native producers?
    Answer. While USDA has not required demonstration projects take 
such action, participating Tribes in the demonstration project have 
primarily contracted with Tribal vendors, and many have chosen to 
incorporate traditional foods, such as bison, whitefish, squash and 
wild rice.
    One of the challenges for the Native producers that has already 
arisen is that these projects are not permanent. Many smaller Native 
producers cannot scale up to meet the pilot project/tribe's demand 
without assurances that opportunities to continue contracting will 
remain available.

    Question 8. Ms. Simms Hipp, what policies can USDA change 
internally to support Native business capacity building, especially 
Native agricultural producers, beyond FDPIR in all its nutritional 
programs?
    Answer. USDA recognizes that food sovereignty is economic 
sovereignty, and the need to empower tribal food growers, processors, 
and retail/grocer after the COVID-19 pandemic has never been greater. 
We have heard that the 25 percent cash match required under the Farm 
Bill inhibited tribal participation to the Local Agricultural Market 
Program (LAMP). This set of programs is significant because it supports 
both the planning and implementation of food distribution channels: 
direct to consumer, intermediary/grocer, and regional food system 
resilience. This year, USDA provided new flexibility by accepting 
either a cash or in-kind match for programs under LAMP.
    Using one-time ARPA flexibilities, USDA is currently accepting 
applications for non-competitive cooperative agreements for both Tribes 
and State governments to purchase food from tribal and underserved 
producers and distribute this food locally. We have heard from Tribal 
Leaders for a number of years on the importance of subsidizing local 
procurement of Native producers to spur local food economies, and the 
Local Food Purchase Assistance program directly addresses this need.
    Separately, tribal economies benefit by recapturing all levels of 
the food supply chains, including at value added processing and 
packaging. USDA recently announced two tribal partners under the Meat 
and Poultry Processing Capacity Technical Assistance Program, the 
Flower Hill Institute and Intertribal Agriculture Council, to provide 
dedicated technical assistance to Native and non-Native communities on 
establishing meat processing facilities. USDA anticipates utilizing 
flexibility under ARPA to release a new program in the Summer 2022 
supporting early to mid-stage development projects for building new or 
expanding processing plants across the country, including in tribal 
nations.

    Question 9. Ms. Simms Hipp, how can Congress ensure all these 
agencies are effectively working together to address the unique needs 
of Tribal communities?
    Answer. Executive Order 13175 establishes benchmarks for agency 
decisionmaking warranting consultation and the process for conducting 
these government-to-government discussions. Congressional legislation 
that further cements this requirement, including the protection of 
tribal sensitive data from public release, would further USDA and other 
agency's ability to engage tribal governments in substantive and 
specific dialogue on how USDA can better address their needs. The White 
House Council on Native American Affairs has also served as an 
important vehicle in fostering inter agency cooperation.
    Question 10. Ms. Simms Hipp, what is the status of USDA's official 
action plan responding to President Biden's 2021 Memorandum on Tribal 
Consultation and Strengthening Nation-to-Nation Relationships?
    Answer. USDA created an action plan last year and USDA Office of 
Tribal Relations submitted it on April 26, 2021, to the White House.

    Question 11. Ms. Simms Hipp, what is the status of USDA's efforts 
to establish its Tribal Advisory Committee?
    Answer. The 2018 Farm Bill established a Tribal Advisory Committee 
(TAC), but then-President Trump issued a signing statement that the TAC 
was unconstitutional. USDA Office of General Counsel has sent inquiry 
to White House Counsel on how to proceed.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Mike Rounds to 
                            Janie Simms Hipp
New Markets for State-Inspected Meat Act
    Question 1. Ms. Hipp, you mentioned several times in your testimony 
the need to address supply chain interruptions in Tribal Communities as 
well as the importance of local production having a local impact. I 
have introduced legislation, the ``New Markets for State-Inspected Meat 
and Poultry Act (S. 107)'' that addresses both of these concerns. The 
bill would allow for meat and poultry products inspected locally by 
State Meat and Poultry Inspection programs to be sold in interstate 
commerce. This approach would have the benefit of preventing potential 
supply chain interruptions, like we saw during COVID-19, and allowing 
local production to have a positive impact on communities by creating 
new market opportunities for Native producers. Can you speak to the 
importance of creating new market opportunities in new states for 
Native producers, if this legislation were to be signed into law?
    Answer. USDA broadly supports legislation and related opportunities 
expanding agriculture and food markets for tribal and non-Native 
communities. Under the American Rescue Plan Act, USDA is taking steps 
to provide funding for developing and expanding meat, et al. processing 
facilities and has required that such processors either maintain or 
seek to maintain USDA inspection.
    As new processing facilities surface across tribal lands, tribes 
must determine what inspection requirement best meets their needs and 
upholds their sovereignty. Providing parity for state and federal 
inspection may broaden markets; however, USDA has heard tribal leader 
reluctance to pursue state regulation of tribal enterprises, including 
through inspection programs. USDA is respectful of the desire of tribal 
nations to have tribal government inspection processes as well.
SNAP Tribal Food Sovereignty Act
    Question 2. Ms. Hipp, my colleague Sen. Tina Smith and I have 
introduced legislation, the SNAP Tribal Food Sovereignty Act (S. 2757), 
to amend the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act to 
allow the Secretary of Agriculture to enter into self-determination 
contracts with Indian Tribes and Tribal organizations to carry out 
supplemental nutrition assistance programs (SNAP). Can you provide some 
context for the committee as to why it is important for Tribes to be 
able to make these decisions for themselves and how this legislation 
might have the potential for improving the quality of life in Indian 
Country?
    Answer. USDA recognizes the important role that Indian Tribal 
Organizations (ITOs) have in ensuring tribal households have access to 
nutrition assistance, including SNAP. USDA requires State SNAP agencies 
to consult with ITOs in the administration of SNAP and encourages 
collaboration that enhances culturally competent access to SNAP.
    USDA has heard tribal leader interest across the country on 
extending tribal administration and/or oversight of SNAP to tribal 
agencies. There are complex cost and administrative concerns to take 
into consideration. Additionally, there are barriers in current law 
that prevent ITOs from administering SNAP in full. USDA welcomes the 
opportunity to discuss this potential expansion of tribal self-
determination with Congress.
    USDA is committed to working with tribes to determine which 
nutrition assistance programs are best targeted to meet their needs and 
upholding our trust responsibility to meet the interest of tribal 
sovereign nations. Additionally, the Tribal administration of SNAP, 
which includes SNAP-Ed funding, could allow Tribes to directly manage 
SNAP-Ed allocation and develop nutrition education and food access 
activities specific to tribal needs within the current SNAP-Ed guidance 
that apply to all SNAP administration agencies. However, Tribes are not 
currently included in the SNAP-Ed funding allocation formula under 
section 28 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008.
School lunch funding issues
    Question 3. Ms. Hipp, I was glad that you discussed food security 
in your testimony. Food security overall is an important concept and an 
important objective. One place it is particularly important for Tribes 
in South Dakota is in the schools. School meal programs at the schools 
on Tribes' Reservations in South Dakota are a key way the Tribes' youth 
receive nutritional meals and stave off hunger. Often because of 
prevalent poverty, school meals are the only meals the youth receive. 
Unfortunately, it appears that the resources dedicated to school meals 
are far less than what is required to meet the need. One Tribe's P.L. 
100-297 school informed me that it only receives reimbursement for the 
cost of food supplies and one person's salary. You cannot run a school 
meal program with just that. Additional staff is needed; preparing and 
storing the food is also needed. Thus, the school ends up subsidizing 
its meal program with funding that is supposed to go directly towards 
educational resources. This school is indicative of all the schools on 
this particular Reservation, and I have to think it is happening among 
at least the other Tribes in South Dakota. Can you speak to the efforts 
USDA is undertaking to address these funding shortfalls and what 
avenues Tribes have to properly fund both staff and school meals? Other 
than additional funding, what are USDA's solutions to this problem? 
Would USDA support a reconfiguration of how school meal funding goes to 
schools on Reservations?
    Answer. FNS USDA appreciates the steps schools are taking to ensure 
that school-age youth receive adequate nutrition throughout the day. 
Funding for school meals is generally authorized under the ``Richard B. 
Russell National School Lunch Act (P.L. 79-396, as amended by P.L. 116-
94), reimbursing school food authorities for meals that meet 
eligibility guidelines serving students qualifying for free, reduced 
price, or paid eligibility status.
    Funding for school meals is often stretched nation-wide. USDA would 
be open to discussions with Congress on funding opportunities 
addressing this funding shortage in general and also specifically on 
Indian reservations.
School Meal Delivery
    Question 4. In terms of Native Business Capacity Building and Buy 
Native American, what authorities does USDA have to facilitate Tribal 
or Native small businesses in the school meal food delivery area--
particularly for those Tribes that do not have surplus resources? Does 
USDA partner with the Department of Commerce on facilitating Native 
business in the food security arena? What, if any, additional 
authorities from this Committee would be helpful for USDA to have to 
facilitate its efforts towards food security in Indian Country, 
specifically on large, land-based, remote reservations?
    Answer. USDA has utilized current authorities available under 
HUBZones, administered by the Small Business Administration (SBA), to 
provide for set asides in procurement and is looking to expand this 
use. Virtually all of Indian Country is eligible to qualify for a 
HUBZone designation. USDA is exploring how these flexibilities could 
apply for relevant procurement solicitations. To be eligible, an 
applicable Native food enterprise would need to be certified by SBA as 
a HUBZone and by AMS as a qualified vendor. This is also an area where 
tribes have requested Congressional authorization for separation from 
state school lunch regulations.
    USDA is looking into some existing treaty provisions but does not 
currently have independent statutory authority to pursue Native 
purchasing preferences in the Farm Bill. For example, Buy Indian 
applies to BIA and IHS but has not been extended to USDA, NMAI, or 
other federal agencies with an Indian Country procurement impact. USDA 
would welcome Congressional authorization of Indian purchasing 
preferences for federal food and nutrition programs directly and 
primarily serving Tribal nations and tribal citizen households.
Buy Indian Act
    Question 5. The Buy Indian Act Authorizes DOI and HHS to purchase 
supplies, services, and equipment from qualified Native American 
vendors. Is it possible to use the Buy Indian Act to purchase Indian 
Agriculture Products, such as MREs or school lunches through 
cooperation between the Departments of Agriculture, Interior, and 
Defense? Is additional guidance from congress needed to enhance inter-
agency cooperation in this area?
    Answer. School districts typically manage their own budgets in 
collaboration with third-party, private vendors to provide the majority 
of foods for breakfast and lunch. USDA, in turn, offers reimbursement 
through the School Breakfast Program and National School Lunch Program 
respectively.
    In 2015, the USDA Food and Nutrition Service released guidance on 
the ``Service of Traditional Foods in Public Facilities,'' including 
schools, to clarify for school districts and related authorities how 
traditional foods meet dietary guidelines and are eligible for 
reimbursement.
    As a whole USDA is looking into some existing treaty provisions but 
does not currently have independent statutory authority to pursue 
Native purchasing preferences in the Farm Bill. For example, Buy Indian 
applies to BIA and IHS but has not been extended to USDA, NMAI, or 
other federal agencies with an Indian Country procurement impact. USDA 
would welcome Congressional authorization of Indian purchasing 
preferences for federal food and nutrition programs directly and 
primarily serving Tribal nations and tribal citizen households.
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Lisa Murkowski to 
                            Janie Simms Hipp
    Question 1a. On February 24, 2021, President Biden issued Executive 
Order 14017 ``America's Supply Chains.'' Executive Order 14017 directs 
the Administration to support a resilient, diverse, and secure supply 
chain that is able to withstand pandemics and other biological threats, 
cyber-attacks, climate shocks and extreme weather events, terrorist 
attacks, geopolitical and economic competition, and other conditions 
that can reduce critical manufacturing capacity. The Executive Order 
requires Agency heads to consult outside stakeholders--such as those in 
industry, academia, non-governmental organizations, communities, labor 
unions, and State, local, and Tribal governments. Can you discuss how 
each of your Agencies have consulted with Tribal governments, and 
relevant stakeholders in fulfilling the policy of Executive Order 
14017?
    Answer. USDA conducted a consultation and listening session on 
``Creating a Tribal Action Plan for Fairer Meat, Poultry, and Seafood 
Processing'' in late January 2022. Through this consultation, USDA 
solicited tribal input on how USDA could support or help facilitate 
nationwide, integrated tribal processing infrastructure.
    This consultation/listening session spoke to funding made available 
under the American Rescue Plan Act and the Biden-Harris 
Administration's priority in creating an action plan for fairer, more 
resilient meat and poultry supply chain. USDA mission area leadership 
from both Marketing and Regulatory Programs and Rural Development, 
areas principally tasked in USDA for administering these programs 
served as Consulting Officials on behalf during this session. Specific 
to Alaska and the Northwest, USDA received significant input on the 
importance of seafood in processing and supply chain.

    Question 1b. What role did your respective offices play in 
supporting your Agency's broader outreach on the Executive Order?
    Answer. One-year after this Executive Order, USDA published the 
``USDA Agri-Food Supply Chain Assessment: Programs and Policy Options 
for Strengthening Resilience,'' to identify potential solutions and 
address vulnerabilities related to the implementation of this Executive 
Order. The Office of Tribal Relations in the Office of the Secretary 
contributed to this report with issues specific to Indian Country food 
systems and supply chains.
    USDA's Marketing and Regulatory Programs recently announced 
agreements with Flower Hill Institute, a Native-owned community 
directed non-profit, out of New Mexico, and the Intertribal Agriculture 
Council, out of Montana, to provide nationwide technical assistance for 
the development and expansion of value-added infrastructure, furthering 
resilience in agri-food supply chains.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Tester to 
                            Janie Simms Hipp
    Question 1. How can we ensure that we are promoting competition in 
our economy while also giving Tribes a fair shot?
    Answer. Our trust and treaty responsibility to tribal nations is 
constitutionally based and legally unique. We were able to obtain the 
land that now comprises our great nation through the bargain of these 
treaties. In addition, the United States and state governments created 
a complex jurisdictional system whereby we have essentially eliminated 
tribal government tax bases to independently fund their governmental 
services.
    Promoting competition in the market is only possible if there is a 
market. By empowering tribal and Native owned business and producers 
within Indian Country we are creating strong markets in which we all 
prosper. We can promote tribal economies and tribal producers by 
promoting preferences on tribal lands and when programs are serving 
tribal communities.

    Question 2. Is there a role for things like Tribal Set-Asides and 
waiving cost-share requirements in USDA programs that will lift up 
Tribal producers while also promoting competition?
    Answer. Yes. Federal policies have created such an imbalance we can 
only create a fair competitive market by balancing it back to even it 
out. Because tribal nations essentially have no tax base, a creation of 
federal and state government policies, if there is no tribal set-aside 
or the ability to waive matching-cost share requirements, tribal 
governments and producers are generally not able to compete and apply 
for USDA programs.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Brian Schatz to 
                              Lexie Holden
    Question 1. You testified that much of Indian Country is a ``credit 
desert,'' and that more data about the extent of the disparity is 
needed to inform policy reforms. What information, specifically, is 
needed for a comprehensive analysis of Native access to agriculture 
credit?
    Answer. In the formal recommendations submitted by the Native Farm 
Bill Coalition in 2017 ahead of the 2018 Farm Bill, we included the 
following:
    The Intertribal Agriculture Council, based on its finding of the 
existence of ``Credit Deserts'' in Indian Country, asserts the need for 
an in-depth analysis by the Government Accountability Office into the 
nature of credit in Indian Country; specifically examining compliance 
with the Community Reinvestment Act by banks on and near Indian 
Reservations.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ (See Page 71) https://seedsofnativehealth.org/wp-content/
uploads/2017/06/Farm-Bill-Report_WEB.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    What the final language of the 2018 Farm Bill called for instead 
was a GAO study into Native producers' access to credit via the Farm 
Credit System. While such information would be useful to know, the Farm 
Credit System, and subsequently the data gleaned from this study, would 
represent merely a subset of the wider issue that is Native American 
producers' barriers in accessing ag credit. Additionally, the results 
of this report have never been published despite it being commissioned 
in 2018.
    We would again like to see a GAO study into the nature of credit in 
Indian Country, however we need a report which examines all financial 
institutions including commercial lenders, federal lenders, and 
Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs). We understand 
that not every lender is equipped to deal with the high-risk, capital 
intensive industry that is agriculture. For those that are equipped, 
they might not be prepared to serve Native American producers, whose 
assets and operations might be ``non-traditional'' in the eyes of 
lenders.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Brian Schatz to 
                        J. Kukui Maunakea-Forth
    Question 1. Access to credit is a consistent concern raised by 
Native stakeholders in the agricultural space. What challenges has MA`O 
Organic Farms observed or experienced regarding access to funding for 
Native agriculture ventures in Hawai`i?
    Answer. The most prominent hurdles MA`O faces to scaling up are 
shared by many other Native Hawaiian farmers and `aina-based (land-
based) organizations (and likely faced by similarly positioned native 
governed organizations across the US) include:

   Costs related to local and national food-safety 
        certification and compliance are burdensome. The process is 
        time intensive, there is the compliance costs themselves, but 
        there is also the dedication of personnel time to document and 
        complete the paperwork. Technical assistance and expertise is 
        often not available.

   Wrap-around services and resources for native Hawaiian and 
        other BIPOC populations working in ag/farming ventures is not 
        available/inaccessible. There is a lack of sufficient and 
        accessible health, mental well-being, academic and family 
        support resources for native Hawaiian organications, 
        particularly after the last two years of the pandemic.

   Automation, technology and other innovations for native 
        farmers/agriculturists are unavailable and or inaccessible so 
        that we can scale-up the ag/farming operations. High need and 
        emerging infrastructural needs include energy and water 
        optimization and efficiency. Access to capital to secure better 
        products and services is needed but is often cost prohibitive.

   Other: Affordable Housing. In order for MA`O to scale up its 
        ag venture, there is a need for a stable workforce, 
        particularly for staff and families in rural and native 
        communities. Funding for ag housing projects is extremely 
        difficult to access especially since land is so expensive in 
        Hawai`i.

    Question 2. Based on your experience, what recommendations do you 
have to help address access to funding issues for Native farmers in 
Hawai`i?
    Answer. We know there is precedent for redefining eligibility for 
USDA programs, and believe that this is necessary to create greater 
impact for a wide array of Native Hawaiian-led organizations in our 
state's food system.

   Reinstate the 2005 waiver Section 278-1-A-B-6 that allows 
        any community out of urban HNL to qualify for RD programs, 
        while also expanding it to all islands in the State (not just 
        Honolulu County, island of Oahu) see copy of 2005 waiver.

   Allow Hawai`i USDA program applicants to use Department of 
        Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL) subdivision boundaries to help 
        define location eligibility to better target programs to 
        communities with high concentrations of Native Hawaiians.

   Expand the Substantially Underserved Trust Area (SUTA) 
        program to all USDA programs and specifically recognize 
        proximity to DHHL lands as eligibility for SUTA

    In terms of our broader experience with other programs such as ANA 
or EDA, the same general points of friction pose a challenge to MA`O to 
make the best use of the program resources and are likely barriers to 
many other Native Hawaiian-led organizations even attempting to access 
these programs at all:

   Reporting burden. For small Community Based Organizations 
        (CBO) like MA`O, there is often a misalignment of the RFP 
        expectations for reporting with the reality of time and 
        resources available for reporting. In the past, we have worked 
        to incorporate the program narrative reporting into our 
        workflow, however, financial reporting is still burdensome. 
        Since the pandemic, many of the reports have transitioned into 
        online reporting, however, the access to the portals, the 
        outreach/access to technical assistance, and the obsolete/
        duplicative processes are still areas they are working on.

   Scarce/scant resources to meet the RFP proposal criteria. To 
        be competitive, `aina based organizations need access to 
        technical assistance during the proposal writing process. ANA 
        has an excellent model of TA/TTA Centers that are based 
        throughout the US that other agencies could note. Virtual 
        meetings have helped with access to TA but not necessarily with 
        the quality of services to build/develop a competitive 
        proposal.

   Staff turnover, understaffing. When we are lucky enough to 
        receive program funding, staff turnover and understaffing at 
        the federal agency often leaves us with inconsistent guidance 
        on program administration or reporting. We often have to 
        contend with long wait times for guidance and approvals, 
        hampering our ability to deliver outcomes effectively and 
        efficiently, and to meet the deadlines of the grants or loans 
        themselves.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Brian Schatz to 
                             Wahleah Johns
    Question 1. You testified that the Department of Energy is not 
currently implementing its policy establishing a purchasing preference 
for Tribal energy. What affirmative steps will you take to ensure this 
policy will be implemented?
    Answer. The DOE Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs (Office 
of Indian Energy), within the confines of the Tribal Energy Purchase 
Preference provision, commits to reopen a dialogue within DOE, and 
between DOE and GSA to develop recommendations that will strengthen the 
intent of this policy.
    Implementation of this policy aligns with the Administration's 
priorities to support American firms and workers through government 
procurement, address equity goals, and expand contracting opportunities 
consistent with the Buy Indian Act.

    Question 2. What must be done to establish a purchasing preference 
for Tribal energy across the federal government, particularly to 
General Services Administration and the Department of Defense?
    Answer. Title V of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) 
established a Tribal Energy Purchase Preference provision which 
authorizes Federal agencies to provide preference to qualified Indian-
owned organizations for the purpose of purchasing electricity, other 
energy products, and energy byproducts (so long as the agency does not 
pay more than prevailing market prices or receive less than prevailing 
market terms and conditions).
    In a May 2011 Decision Memorandum, the Secretary of Energy 
determined that DOE's policy would focus on a preference for the 
purchase of energy produced by renewable resources, renewable energy 
products, and renewable energy by-products. In December 2012, then 
Secretary Chu issued a Policy Statement allowing DOE sites to conduct 
limited competitions that include only tribes and tribal enterprises.
    Nonetheless, a 2019 GAO report (GAO-19-359) found that no agency 
had used this preference, and the GAO report recommended,

         To the extent that Congress wants to further encourage use of 
        tribally owned energy sources, it should consider amending 
        EPACT05 to provide more specific direction to federal agencies 
        for implementing the tribal energy preference, to include 
        consideration of additional incentives or requirements. 
        [Emphasis added]

    The GAO report further noted that use of the Tribal Energy Purchase 
Preference is discretionary.
    Based on the above, consideration could be given as to whether the 
confines of not paying more than prevailing market prices or receive 
less than prevailing market terms and conditions, are limiting use of 
the provision. Further, additional consideration could be given to the 
recommendations of the 2019 GAO report (GAO-19-359) and the 
discretionary nature of the statute.

    Question 3. You testified that an estimated 30,000 Tribal homes 
currently lack electricity. What is the Department of Energy doing to 
address this lack of critical infrastructure?
    Answer. Within the Department of Energy (DOE), there is a 
multifaceted approach to address lack of critical infrastructure in 
Tribal communities. The DOE Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs 
(Office of Indian Energy) was recently realigned under the newly formed 
Office of Infrastructure which gives greater focus and alignment of 
resources for addressing important tribal infrastructure needs. The 
Office of Indian Energy continues to support financial and technical 
assistance opportunities which can directly address many of those 
needs. Additionally, with the increased budget the Office received 
under fiscal year 2022 appropriations, the Office of Indian Energy will 
be able to initiate a multi-year effort focused on remedying that lack 
of critical infrastructure and providing power to unelectrified homes 
across tribal communities.
    Additionally, there are substantial investments available that stem 
from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. Over $62 billion in 
resources across 60 new programs are available through DOE with many 
available to American Indian and Alaska Native communities. The 
Department of Energy held a Consultation on March 29th, 2022 with every 
federally recognized Tribe invited. The Consultation event discussed 
the various programs and opportunities for which tribal communities can 
apply. To meet this task and better prepare all DOE staff, agency wide 
training was provided in March 2022, covering tribal history in the 
United States and best practices for effective working partnerships 
with Tribal Nations. Increased partnerships with tribal communities 
must be met with increased awareness and understanding of tribal 
communities at DOE, and we are taking steps to make that happen.
    Because we need better data related to the exact needs, our Office 
has been tasked by Congress to submit a report on energy access and 
reliability in Indian Country. Once complete, we look forward to 
providing more precise data about needs in Indian Country. Tribal 
involvement is essential to the accuracy of this report and we are 
contacting tribal communities directly and encouraging participation. 
Among these efforts included a listening session hosted by the Office 
of Indian Energy this past November (Energy Access and Reliability on 
Tribal Lands Listening Session). A second listening session on the 
report will be held this summer.

    Question 4. How does the Department of Energy-Office of Indian 
Energy Policy and Programs collaborate with Indian Affairs' Division of 
Energy and Mineral Development to develop coordinated solutions to 
Tribal energy issues?
    Answer. The DOE Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs (Office 
of Indian Energy) participates, along with the Department of Interior 
(DOI) and the DOI Division of Energy and Minerals (DEMD) on the White 
House Council on Native American Affairs (WHCNAA). Prosperity and 
resilience for all Tribal Nations is the vision of the WHCNAA and the 
WHCNAA endeavors to advance this vision through collaborative inter-
agency work across the Executive Branch, regular and meaningful Tribal-
Federal engagement, and by fostering an all-of-government approach in 
meeting treaty and trust obligations to Tribes.
    Further, the Office of Indian Energy has had a Memorandum of 
Understanding (MOU) with the DOI Office of Indian Energy and Economic 
Development, including DEMD, since June 2016. That MOU provides a 
framework for cooperation in Indian energy issues between the 
participants. That MOU was amended September 2018 to add the DOI Indian 
Energy Service Center. In support of this MOU, the DOE Office of Indian 
Energy participates in monthly calls with the DOI Division of Energy 
and Minerals and the DOI Indian Energy Service Center to coordinate and 
collaborate on mutual issues. The DOE Office of Indian Energy also 
participates in Federal Partner calls hosted by the DOI Indian Energy 
Service Center. The Office of Indian Energy also uses its website and 
electronic newsletter (20,000+ subscribers) to disseminate 
opportunities, upcoming events, and services provided by DEMD, as well 
as tribal energy related information from many other federal agencies 
and offices.
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Lisa Murkowski to 
                             Wahleah Johns
    Question 1a. On February 24, 2021, President Biden issued Executive 
Order 14017 ``America's Supply Chains.'' Executive Order 14017 directs 
the Administration to support a resilient, diverse, and secure supply 
chain that is able to withstand pandemics and other biological threats, 
cyber-attacks, climate shocks and extreme weather events, terrorist 
attacks, geopolitical and economic competition, and other conditions 
that can reduce critical manufacturing capacity. The Executive Order 
requires Agency heads to consult outside stakeholders--such as those in 
industry, academia, non-governmental organizations, communities, labor 
unions, and State, local, and Tribal governments. Can you discuss how 
your Agency have consulted with Tribal governments, and relevant 
stakeholders in fulfilling the policy of Executive Order 14017?
    Answer. In response to Executive Order 14017, ``America's Supply 
Chains,'' 86 FR 11849 (February 24, 2021) the Department of Energy 
issued a Request for Information (RFI) on November 18, 2021. Responses 
received from the RFI informed the February 24, 2022 report, America's 
Strategy to Secure the Supply Chain for a Robust Clean Energy 
Transition as summarized on the DOE website. This DOE energy supply 
chain strategy report summarizes the key elements of the energy supply 
chain as well as the strategies the U.S. Government is starting to 
employ to address them. Additionally, it describes recommendations for 
congressional action. Tribal governments and other constituents were 
consulted through the RFI process, and further stakeholder and tribal 
engagement are planned relative to sections of the report.

    Question 1b. What role did your respective office play in 
supporting your Agency's broader outreach on the Executive Order?
    Answer. The Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs provided 
guidance to the Department on best practices to building relationships 
with tribal nations.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Mike Rounds to 
                             Wahleah Johns
Tribal Energy
    Question 1. The ancestral knowledge held by indigenous peoples 
reflects a keen understanding of science and engineering based on 
thousands of years of living with nature's regenerative cycles. As the 
world grapples with how to meet our energy needs using renewable 
resources, native peoples can utilize this knowledge to serve their 
communities and neighbors while also serving as a source for economic 
development and innovation. What kind of collaboration currently exists 
between the Departments of Energy and the Department of Interior to 
support tribes in accessing capital and building capacity to own and 
operate large-scale energy projects to generate electricity and create 
fuels for transportation, including biofuels and hydrogen? Should USDA, 
Interior, DOE and DOD be collaborating to purchase Native American 
energy and build economic capacity in Indian country and address 
National Defense at the same time?
    Answer. Regarding collaboration, the DOE Office of Indian Energy 
Policy and Programs (Office of Indian Energy) participates, along with 
the Department of Interior (DOI) on the White House Council on Native 
American Affairs (WHCNAA). The WHCNAA endeavors to advance this vision 
through collaborative inter-agency work across the Executive Branch, 
regular and meaningful Tribal-Federal engagement, and by fostering an 
all-of-government approach in meeting treaty and trust obligations to 
Tribes. The Energy Subcommittee of the WHCNAA Economic Development, 
Energy, and Infrastructure Committee is developing an Access to Capital 
Working Group among the participating agencies.
    Further, the Office of Indian Energy has had a Memorandum of 
Understanding (MOU) with the DOI Office of Indian Energy and Economic 
Development since June 2016. That MOU provides a framework for 
cooperation in Indian energy issues between the participants. That MOU 
was amended September 2018 to add the DOI Indian Energy Service Center. 
In support of this MOU, the DOE Office of Indian Energy participates in 
monthly calls with the DOI Division of Energy and Minerals and the DOI 
Indian Energy Service Center to coordinate and collaborate on mutual 
issues. The DOE Office of Indian Energy also participates in Federal 
Partner calls hosted by the DOI Indian Energy Service Center.
    Regarding collaborating with USDA, Interior, and DOD to purchase 
Native American energy and build economic capacity in Indian country 
and address National Defense at the same time, the DOE Office of Indian 
Energy welcomes the opportunity and will initiate dialogue towards that 
end.
HEARTH Act
    Question 2. Many business projects and energy projects involve 
rights of way, easements, or leases of land. Infrastructure projects, 
much of which facilitate economic development on Tribal lands (such as 
broadband projects), also can include the need for rights-of-way or 
easements. Unfortunately, the process when needing BIA approval of such 
can be slow and arduous. With the Infrastructure Act's resources now 
getting out to Tribes to put to use on their lands, can the Bureau put 
into place an expedited process for obtaining approved rights-of-way, 
easements, and leases? What does the Bureau need from this Committee to 
facilitate such an expedited process? In terms of leasing, can you 
address my question for those tribes with HEARTH Act ordinances and 
also for those tribes without HEARTH Act ordinances?
    Answer. DOE Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs cannot 
speak on behalf of the Department of Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs 
(BIA). We respectfully request those questions be posed to BIA.
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Ben Ray Lujan to 
                             Wahleah Johns
    Question 1. Last June, Secretary Granholm testified in front of the 
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. In this hearing, 
Senator Kelly asked the Secretary about the $2 billion Congress 
provided to the Department of Energy in 2005 to establish the Tribal 
Energy Loan Guarantee Program to support Tribally owned renewable 
energy projects.
    As of June 2021, no loans had been issued under this program. We 
have been told that the Department of Energy is working on getting the 
funds out to eligible loan recipients, and we are hopeful that 
Congress' recent authorization of direct federal lending in the Fiscal 
Year 2022 Omnibus will have a positive impact on loan accessibility.
    This is loan program is very important for developing Tribally 
owned renewable energy projects in New Mexico and across the country.
    Ms. Johns, can you provide an update to the committee on these 
efforts?
    Answer. The Department of Energy and the DOE Office of Indian 
Energy understand the importance of the Tribal Energy Loan Guarantee 
Program for developing Tribally owned renewable energy projects in New 
Mexico and across the country. The Tribal Energy Loan Guarantee Program 
is being implemented by DOE's Loan Programs Office (LPO) which has 
experience in administering direct loan and loan guarantee programs. We 
are working closely with this office to provide constant outreach to 
tribes related to the opportunity provided by the Tribal Energy Loan 
Guarantee Program and held jointly with LPO the DOE Roundtable 
Discussion on Funding and Financing Tribal Energy Projects May 2021.
    DOE's LPO program confirms that DOE supports the Fiscal Year (FY) 
2022 Omnibus language to allow the Tribal Energy Loan Guarantee Program 
(TELGP) applicants access to direct loans from DOE via the United 
States Treasury Federal Financing Bank (FFB). DOE plans to issue a 
solicitation supplement incorporating FY22 direct loan authority and is 
actively moving forward with interagency processes to establish the 
direct loan program through TELGP. The Department is publicizing this 
important change to ensure the Tribal community knows about the new 
authority through Tribal stakeholder events, communications, and 
outreach. The FY22 Omnibus language only provides direct loan authority 
through FY 2022. The Administration supports continuing in FY 2023 the 
language enacted by Congress in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 
2022, that broadens TELGP authority to allow applicants to apply to LPO 
for direct loans via FFB.
    In April 2021, the Department of Energy Office of Indian Energy 
held a roundtable on funding and financing Tribal energy projects, 
which resulted in several recommendations the Department could 
implement on its own to improve the Tribal Energy Loan Guarantee 
Program, which the Department is in the process of doing through the 
issuance of a revised solicitation.

    Question 2. In 2021, the Department of Energy Office of Indian 
Energy held a roundtable on funding and financing Tribal energy 
projects, which resulted in several recommendations the Department 
could implement on its own to improve the Tribal Energy Loan Guarantee 
Program. These recommendations included funding more energy development 
projects, changing the program's credit rating requirements, and 
modeling the application process after the Bureau of Indian Affairs 
Indian Loan Guarantee Program.
    Ms. Johns, what is the status of these recommendations made to the 
Office of Indian Energy? Have any been incorporated or does the 
Department have plans to do so?
    Answer. The Loan Programs Office is preparing to issue a 
significant amendment to the TELGP solicitation that is intended to 
address comments received from tribes, lenders and other stakeholders. 
These changes will clarify ownership requirements, lending obligations, 
and fees and are expected to increase interest in and accessibility to 
TELGP loan guarantees.

    Question 3. Ms. Johns, what steps has the Department taken to 
streamline business processes and remove barriers to energy development 
on Tribal lands for Native enterprises?
    Answer. The DOE Office of Indian Energy's statute supports all 
federally recognized Indian tribes, including Alaska Native Village and 
Regional Corporations, tribal energy development organization, and 
intertribal organizations. Based on those statutory responsibilities, 
our focus really is on energy development and not specifically economic 
development or business development. The majority of tribal energy 
projects funded by the Office of Indian energy have been for facility 
and community scale and although there may be local savings, most are 
not for the export of energy for revenue generation as would be the 
case for utility scale energy projects.
    While Native enterprises are not directly eligible by statute, many 
have benefited from technical assistance as well as financial 
assistance. Specifically, the Office of Indian Energy has provided 
funding to make Tribal businesses more efficient, including parking 
garage light efficiency upgrades for Forrest County Potawatomi Nation 
of Wisconsin. We have worked with Coeur d'Alene Tribe and Pribilof 
Islands Aleut Community of St. Paul Island to upgrade efficiency and 
energy use at grocery stores.
    These are just a few examples of tribal businesses engaging with 
the Office of Indian Energy. While the Office of Indian Energy does not 
partner with individually owned businesses, we understand that that 
affordable and reliable energy access in tribal communities creates a 
foundation for continued economic potential and progress.
    Relative to the TELGP, the forthcoming amended TELGP solicitation 
referenced in A3 above will provide a more streamlined approach to 
accessing the TELGP program for tribes working through an established 
lender. In addition, the FY 2022 Omnibus language allowing TELGP 
applicants access to direct loans from DOE via FFB, will obviate the 
need for a partial guarantee of a commercial lender, streamline Tribes' 
access to capital, and increase interest in and accessibility to TELGP. 
The Administration supports continuing in FY 2023 the language enacted 
by Congress in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022, that broadens 
TELGP authority to allow applicants to apply to LPO for direct loans 
via FFB. Continuing the authority will ensure the greatest impact and 
that tribes have sufficient time to complete the application processes 
for projects in the early stages of development.

    Question 4. Ms. Johns, how is the Department of Energy looking to 
increase lending and investment opportunities for Native businesses, 
and how is it conducting proactive outreach to Tribes and Native 
enterprises?
    Answer. The DOE Office of Indian Energy is working closely with the 
Loan Program Office to provide constant outreach to tribes related to 
the opportunity provided by the Tribal Energy Loan Guarantee Program.
    DOE's Loan Program Office (LPO) has been working with a number of 
Native American organizations to increase awareness and understanding 
of the Tribal Energy Loan Guarantee Program. LPO has participated in 
several conference roundtables and webinars with the Native American 
Financial Officers Association (NAFOA), and is planning events to 
address special topics related to energy finance, such as the use of 
tax-equity. LPO also participates in conference roundtables with the 
National Center for American Indian Enterprise Development (NCAIED) 
through their annual Reservation Economic Summit (RES). LPO also done 
outreach to Alaskan native communities by attending the Alaskan Federal 
of Natives (AFN) conference and maintain an active outreach presence in 
Alaska through coordination with the DOE Alaska Energy Office. The 
engagement of potential TELGP lenders and borrowers by DOE's newly 
organized Outreach and Business Development Division has resulted in 
receiving the program's first application in 2021. LPO continues to 
solicit feedback as appropriate to better serve tribes' needs, 
consistent with LPOs authority.