[Senate Hearing 117-518]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                        S. Hrg. 117-518

                 S. 3123, S. 3126, S. 3273, AND S. 3381

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                      COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                           FEBRUARY 16, 2022

                               __________

         Printed for the use of the Committee on Indian Affairs
         
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
49-895                     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 February 16, 2022................................     1
Statement of Senator Merkley.....................................     3
Statement of Senator Murkowski...................................     2
Statement of Senator Padilla.....................................     4
Statement of Senator Rounds......................................     2
Statement of Senator Schatz......................................     1
Statement of Senator Smith.......................................    26

                               Witnesses

Isom-Clause, Kathryn, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Indian Affairs, 
  Department of the Interior.....................................     5
    Prepared statement...........................................     7
Kennedy, Hon. Cheryle, Chairwoman, Confederated Tribes of Grand 
  Ronde..........................................................    12
    Prepared statement...........................................    14
Milanovich, Hon. Reid, Vice Chairman, Agua Caliente Band of 
  Cahuilla Indians...............................................    16
    Prepared statement...........................................    18
Pigsley, Hon. Delores, Chairman, Confederated Tribes of Siletz 
  Indians........................................................     9
    Prepared statement...........................................    10
Vogel, Sharon, Executive Director, Cheyenne River Housing 
  Authority......................................................    19
    Prepared statement...........................................    20

                                Appendix

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, prepared 
  statement......................................................    31
Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, prepared 
  statement......................................................    32
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Ben Ray Lujan to:
    Kathryn Isom-Clause..........................................    35
    Sharon Vogel.................................................    39
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Brian Schatz to:
    Kathryn Isom-Clause..........................................    35
    Hon. Cheryle Kennedy.........................................    38
    Hon. Reid Milanovich.........................................    43
    Hon. Delores Pigsley.........................................    38
    Sharon Vogel.................................................    41

 
                 S. 3123, S. 3126, S. 3273, AND S. 3381

                              ----------                              


                      WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2022


                                       U.S. Senate,
                               Committee on Indian Affairs,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:40 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. During today's legislative 
hearing, we will consider four bills, S. 3123, a bill to amend 
the Siletz Reservation Act to address the hunting, fishing, 
trapping, and animal gathering rights of the Confederated 
Tribes of Siletz Indians, and for other purposes; S. 3126, a 
bill to amend the Grand Ronde Reservation Act to address the 
hunting, fishing, trapping, and animal gathering rights of the 
Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community, and for other 
purposes; S. 3273, Agua Caliente Land Exchange Fee to Trust 
Confirmation Act, and S. 3381, Tribal Trust Land Homeownership 
Act of 2021.
    Senator Merkley's bill, S. 3123 and 3126, would amend the 
statutes establishing the Siletz and the Grand Ronde Tribes' 
reservations in order to permit the tribes, the State of 
Oregon, and the United States, to renegotiate the scope of the 
tribes' hunting, fishing, gathering, and trapping rights.
    Senator Padilla's bill, S. 3273, would clarify the trust 
status of land exchange between the Agua Caliente Band of 
Cahuilla Indians and the Bureau of Land Management as part of 
the creation of the San Jacinto National Monument.
    The last bill on our agenda, Senator Thune's 3381, would 
help address a problem this Committee heard much about last 
Congress, the lengthy path to tribal homeownership on trust 
lands. This bill would formalize deadlines for the BIA to 
process and complete mortgage packages for residential and 
business mortgages on Indian land, among other improvements.
    Before I turn to Vice Chair Murkowski, I would like to 
extend my sincere welcome and thanks to our witnesses for 
joining us today. I look forward to your testimony and our 
discussion.
    Vice Chair Murkowski?

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

    Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I will keep my comments brief. I think you have described 
well the contours of each of these four measures dealing with 
tribal land issues.
    I would like to comment on S. 3381. This is the measure 
introduced by Senator Thune, as well as Senator Rounds here on 
our Committee, and Senator Tester and Senator Smith. We all 
know that the issue of access to housing for Indian communities 
is something that has been identified as a top priority for the 
Committee to work on this Congress. Good news is that we have 
now moved the NAHASDA bill from Committee. That is going to be 
very helpful with reforms in HUD's Indian Housing program.
    According to HUD's 2017 Housing Assessment for American 
Indian and Alaska Native Communities, in order to eliminate 
overcrowding in tribal areas, this is actually all data between 
2013 and 2015, a total of 68,000 new units would need to be 
constructed, 33,000 new units and another 35,000 new units to 
replace units that were severely physically inadequate. Many 
tribal and regional housing associations believe that this is 
an underestimate, I certainly believe it is, and think that the 
need is much, much greater.
    According to Freddie Mac's chief economist, the national 
housing shortage totals nearly 4 million housing units. So with 
such an obvious need for housing in Indian Country, and 
nationally, any barriers that we can address, we should. That 
includes some of the Federal regulations for processing and 
review of various mortgage packages and title clearance reports 
on tribal trust lands. That is what S. 3381 aims to do. It sets 
deadlines for the Bureau of Indian Affairs to adhere to, 
establishes a realty ombudsman position reporting directly to 
the Secretary of the Interior to clear out the logjams, and 
provides access to the Bureau's Trust Asset and Accounting 
Management System for relevant agencies and tribes.
    So I am looking forward to hearing the presentation on 
these four bills, and the opportunity to exchange questions and 
answers afterwards. Thank you to the witnesses.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Vice Chair Murkowski.
    Now we will turn to Senator Rounds to introduce his witness 
from South Dakota.

                STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE ROUNDS, 
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA

    Senator Rounds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, she 
is joining us virtually today. Mr. Chairman and Madam Vice 
Chair, first of all, I want to say thank you to all of our 
witnesses for taking time to attend today's hearing.
    I am pleased to introduce Ms. Sharon Vogel from my home 
State of South Dakota, and thank her for her willingness to 
testify. Sharon Vogel serves as the Executive Director of the 
Cheyenne River Housing Authority in Eagle Butte, South Dakota, 
on the Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation. She is also chairwoman 
of the United Native American Housing Association with 33 
member tribally designated housing entities, or TDHEs, from 
seven different States.
    Sharon has spent the past 20 years dedicating her career to 
bettering the housing opportunities for our Native American 
communities. I am very grateful that she is taking the time to 
join us here today. I can just share with you, visiting with 
her, she knows more about Native housing challenges and the 
opportunities to improve upon it than about other person I 
know. I am very pleased she is here with us today.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Rounds.
    Now we will turn to Senator Merkley. Welcome to the 
Committee to introduce your two testifiers from Oregon.

                STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF MERKLEY, 
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON

    Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, ad Vice 
Chairman Murkowski, and members of the Committee, for holding 
today's hearing to look at how we address a few of the broken 
promises made to Indian Country over the years.
    One of the great injustices inflicted on Oregon's tribes 
was termination of their status as federally recognized tribes 
in 1954. It would be decades before the damage was so clear 
that efforts to reverse course gained traction here in 
Congress.
    My predecessor, Senator Mark Hatfield, who I had the 
pleasure of interning for way back in the 1970s, led the 
efforts in the Senate to restore the first of our tribes' 
sovereignty, the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Indians, in 
1977. A few years later, he championed the Grand Ronde 
Restoration Act, which restored the Confederated Tribes of the 
Grand Ronde in 1983.
    Even then, the two tribes didn't have land to call their 
own. They were a people without a home. Even when they received 
land to call home, the final consent agreements imposed upon 
them, well, took a number of their rights. They were forced to 
give up the ability to exercise their hunting, fishing, 
trapping, and gathering rights to acquire that modest land 
base.
    That is why I have introduced S. 3123 and S. 3126, which 
would repeal the statutory provisions in the Siletz and Grand 
Ronde Reservation Acts, codifying the consent decrees on under 
lying hunting and fishing rights agreements. This would give 
both the State of Oregon and the Siletz and Grand Ronde Tribes 
the opportunity to renegotiate those agreements to address this 
historic wrong.
    I am pleased to welcome and introduce leaders from these 
two tribes, Chairman Delores Pigsley, of the Confederated 
Tribes of the Siletz Indians, and Chairwoman Cheryle Kennedy, 
of the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde. Originally from 
Toledo, Oregon, Chairman Pigsley has served as an advocate for 
the Siletz Tribe since first being elected to the tribal 
council in 1975, the moment the tribes began seeking to reverse 
their termination.
    For 29 of her 36 years on the council, she has served as 
its chairman, representing the tribe at Federal, State, local 
and intertribal government levels. She has also served as a 
tribal delegate to the National Congress of American Indians, 
Affiliated Tribes of the Northwest Indians, the National Indian 
Child Welfare Association, and the National Indian Gaming 
Association. As someone who is involved with tribal government 
since before these consent agreements were created, she has 
unique first-hand knowledge and experience of how these 
agreements came to be, and why they must be reversed.
    For many decades, Cheryle Kennedy has been deeply involved 
in the restoration of the Confederated Tribes of the Grand 
Ronde, and the leadership of the tribe. I believe she was first 
chair in 1985 and 1986. She began serving again on the council 
after the turn of the century and has spent I think the entire 
last decade as chair.
    Before being elected to serve on the tribal council, she 
worked as a health administrator for tribes and as a tribe's 
health director. She is a former commissioner of the Rural 
Health Council of Oregon, a former commissioner of the Oregon 
Women's Commission, a member of the National Congress of 
American Indians, and appointed chair of the Commission on 
Indian Services by the Oregon legislature.
    I can't think of two better individuals to address this 
Committee over these issues, because they have been involved 
all the way through from before restoration. Thank you for 
entertaining these bills and these witnesses today.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Merkley.
    It is a pleasure to introduce Senator Padilla, who has 
already distinguished himself as a real effective advocate for 
the Native people in California, and the nations within. 
Senator Padilla, your witness.

                STATEMENT OF HON. ALEX PADILLA, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA

    Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 
Murkowski, for holding this hearing on S. 3237, and for 
allowing me this opportunity to introduce Reid Milanovich, the 
Vice Chairman of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians.
    Vice Chairman Milanovich will be testifying on this bill 
that I have introduced together with Senator Feinstein and 
Congressman Raul Ruiz on the House side, to place certain lands 
into trust for the tribe. This bill would finally allow the 
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians to manage over 2,500 
acres of land that have special cultural value to their people.
    Vice Chairman Milanovich was first elected to the tribal 
council in April of 2014, and served five consecutive terms as 
a tribal council member. He was sworn in as vice chairman on 
November 5th of 2019. Prior to serving on the council, Mr. 
Milanovich served on the board of directors for the Agua 
Caliente cultural museum, and served on the tribe's scholarship 
committee.
    Mr. Milanovich is one of six siblings, and in fact, his 
father Richard Milanovich served as tribal chairman for 28 
years, until his passing in 2012. It was under the leadership 
of the vice chairman's father that the effort began to reclaim 
the land that is covered in my bill. Today, Mr. Milanovich is 
here to make sure that we get the job done.
    For generations, the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians 
have lived in what is now known as the Coachella Valley in the 
San Jacinto Mountains. But the Federal Government divided up 
the Agua Caliente's land into even and odd parcels that unknown 
to this Committee cut up, known as a checkerboard. The 
government allotted the even number parcels to Agua Caliente 
and the odd number sections for the creation of a railroad. The 
tribe's reservation was established in 1876, and it only 
included a small portion of their traditional territories as a 
result.
    It wasn't until 1999 that the Bureau of Land Management and 
Agua Caliente entered into an agreement to acquire and exchange 
lands within what would become the Santa Rosa and the San 
Jacinto Mountains National Monument. In 2000, Congress enacted 
the decision to establish the monument, authorize the land 
exchange, and consolidate the checkerboard of land ownership.
    For 17 years, the Agua Caliente has worked with the Bureau 
of Land Management to finalize an agreement, exchange the lands 
that are addressed by this legislation. In March of 2019, the 
land exchange was finalized. However, the 2000 law didn't 
expressly address the status of land that was transferred to 
the tribe. So the lands covered in this bill were not placed 
into trust.
    My legislation would correct that oversight and finally 
place the exchanged land into trust as part of the Agua 
Caliente Reservation. Enactment of this bill would conclude a 
decades-long endeavor between the Agua Caliente Band of 
Cahuilla Indians and the Federal Government to complete the 
original 1999 agreement.
    Vice Chairman Milanovich's father began the effort to 
reclaim this land in the late 1990s. And here we are, more than 
20 years later, with the Vice Chairman here to help push this 
multi-generational effort over the finish line, and finally 
allow the tribe to manage their ancestral lands.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member Murkowski.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    Our final witness is Kathryn Isom-Clause, the Deputy 
Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs at the Department of 
Interior. I want to remind our witnesses that we have your full 
written testimony, and it will be made part of the official 
record.
    Please keep your statement to no more than five minutes, so 
that members have time for questions. We will have a vote, or 
two votes, at 3:30. So the tighter we can be, the quicker we 
can pass these bills.
    So we will start with Ms. Isom-Clause.

 STATEMENT OF KATHRYN ISOM-CLAUSE, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, 
               INDIAN AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF THE 
                            INTERIOR

    Ms. Isom-Clause. Good afternoon, Chairman Schatz, Vice 
Chair Murkowski, and members of the Committee. My name is 
Kathryn Isom-Clause, and I am Taos Pueblo. I serve as the 
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Economic Development 
for Indian Affairs at the U.S. Department of the Interior.
    Thank you for the opportunity to present the department's 
views on the bills to be considered today.
    Regarding S. 3123, in 1980, the Siletz Reservation Act 
established a reservation land base for the Confederated Tribes 
of Siletz Indians of Oregon. Section 4 of the Siletz Act 
requires that a May 2nd, 1980 consent decree entered into 
between the State of Oregon and Siletz to service the exclusive 
and final determination of the tribe's and its members' 
hunting, fishing, and trapping rights and that the 
establishment of the Siletz Reservation does not grant or 
restore any rights beyond the consent decree to the tribe or 
its members.
    S. 3123 amends Section 4 of the Siletz Act to provide a 
process by which Siletz and the State may negotiate to amend or 
replace the existing agreement defining the tribe's hunting, 
fishing, gathering, and trapping rights. S. 3123 also provides 
a vital step forward to allow Siletz to come to a new agreement 
with the State that may permit the tribe to exercise their 
traditional rights more fully as well as manage hunting, 
fishing, gathering, and trapping on their lands.
    Regarding S. 3126, in 1988, the Grand Ronde Reservation Act 
established a reservation land base for the Confederated Tribes 
of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon. Section 2 of the Grand 
Ronde Act states that the January 12th, 1987 consent decree 
entered into between the State of Oregon and Grand Ronde serves 
as the exclusive and final determination of the tribe's and its 
members' hunting, fishing, and trapping rights, and that the 
establishment of the Grand Ronde Reservation does not grant or 
restore any rights beyond the consent decree to the tribe or 
its members.
    Similar to S. 3123, S. 3126 amends Section 2 of the Grand 
Ronde Act to allow Grand Ronde to come to a new agreement with 
the State that may permit the tribe to exercise their 
traditional rights more fully. The Biden Administration and the 
Department are committed to working with tribal governments to 
protect and preserve traditional tribal hunting, fishing, and 
gathering rights on tribal ancestral lands. To that end, the 
department supports S. 3123 and S. 3126.
    S. 3273 would confirm approximately 2,560 acres of land 
owned by the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians in 
California as land held in trust for the benefit of the tribe. 
This bill makes it clear that the land is a part of the tribe's 
reservation. Additionally, the bill makes it clear that the 
land is ineligible for gaming under the Indian Gaming 
Regulatory Act. The tribe plans to manage the land, which is 
within a national monument area, as conservation lands.
    In 1999, the Bureau of Land Management and the tribe 
entered into an agreement to acquire and exchange lands within 
what would become the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains 
National Monuments. In 2000, legislation was enacted to 
facilitate the agreement. In March 2019, the lands transferred 
to the tribe was finalized.
    S. 3273 would simply confirm the land transfer and ensure 
that the land is considered part of the tribe's reservation. 
The department supports this bill.
    S. 3381 would impose a series of statutory requirements on 
the Bureau of Indian Affairs related to the processing and 
review of mortgage packages. This legislation would codify 
current processing deadlines for mortgages, require an annual 
report to be submitted to Congress regarding the mortgages 
reviewed by the Bureau, establish a realty ombudsman position 
reporting directly to the Secretary, and provide access to the 
Bureau's Trust Asset and Accounting Management System, or 
TAAMS, for relevant agencies and tribes.
    We appreciate Congress' shared interest in ensuring that 
mortgage packages are reviewed and processed in a timely 
manner. Notably, the mortgage application review and processing 
deadlines in this legislation are reflected in the Bureau's 
regulations, handbooks, and policy.
    One specific concern the department has with S. 3381 is 
that it would mandate read-only access to TAAMS for the 
Departments of Agriculture, Housing and Urban Development, and 
Veterans Affairs, as well as tribes. The Bureau currently 
provides limited TAAMS access to tribes in relevant agencies 
after the clearance of a background check. Access to TAAMS 
should be contingent on IT security training and limited to 
avoid Privacy Act and confidentiality issues.
    The Department supports the intent of S. 3381 and looks 
forward to working with the Committee to provide technical 
assistance.
    Chairman Schatz, Vice Chair Murkowski, and members of the 
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide the 
department's views on these important bills. I look forward to 
answering any questions you may have.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Isom-Clause follows:]

Prepared Statement of Kathryn Isom-Clause, Deputy Assistant Secretary, 
               Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior
Introduction
    Hello and good afternoon Chairman Schatz, Vice Chair Murkowski, and 
members of the Committee. My name is Kathryn Isom-Clause, and I serve 
as the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Economic Development 
at Indian Affairs at the U.S. Department of the Interior (Department).
    Thank you for the opportunity to present the Department's testimony 
on S. 3123, a bill to amend the Siletz Reservation Act to address the 
hunting, fishing, trapping, and animal gathering rights of the 
Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians, S. 3126, a bill to amend the 
Grand Ronde Reservation Act to address the hunting, fishing, trapping, 
and animal gathering rights of the Confederated Tribes of the Grand 
Ronde Community, S. 3273, the Agua Caliente Land Exchange Fee to Trust 
Confirmation Act, and S. 3381, the Tribal Trust Land Homeownership Act 
of 2021.
S. 3123--A bill to amend the Siletz Reservation Act to address the 
        hunting, fishing, trapping, and animal gathering rights of the 
        Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians, and for other purposes
    In 1980, the Siletz Reservation Act (Siletz Act), P.L. 96-340, 
established a reservation land base for the Confederated Tribes of 
Siletz Indians of Oregon (Siletz or Tribe). Section 4 of the Siletz Act 
requires that a May 2, 1980 consent decree entered into between the 
State of Oregon and Siletz serve as the exclusive and final 
determination of the Tribe's and its members' hunting, fishing and 
trapping rights, and that the establishment of the Siletz Reservation 
does not grant or restore any rights beyond the consent decree to the 
Tribe or its members.
    The May 2, 1980 consent decree provides that the Tribe has limited 
locations and take amounts for salmon fishing and deer and elk hunting, 
no special trapping rights, limited gathering rights, and an option to 
obtain annual amounts of State-furnished salmon, deer, and elk. The 
consent decree otherwise prohibits Tribal hunting, fishing, gathering, 
and trapping activities except as authorized under Oregon State law.
    S. 3123 amends Section 4 of the Siletz Act to allow the April 22, 
1980 agreement between the State, the Tribe, and the United States 
defining the Tribe's hunting, fishing and trapping rights to be amended 
or replaced upon mutual agreement of the Tribe and the State. Upon the 
State and the Tribe coming to a new or amended agreement, S. 3123 
provides that the Tribe and the State may return to Oregon Federal 
District Court to request the modification or termination of the May 2, 
1980 consent decree currently in effect.
    S. 3123 will provide a process by which Siletz and the State may 
negotiate to amend or replace the existing agreement defining the 
Tribe's hunting, fishing, gathering, and trapping rights. The bill will 
allow for Siletz to negotiate their rights to hunt, fish, and trap 
throughout their ancestral homelands. S. 3123 also provides a vital 
step forward to allow Siletz to come to a new agreement with the State 
that may permit the Tribe to exercise their traditional rights more 
fully as well as manage hunting, fishing, gathering and trapping on 
their lands. The Biden Administration and the Department are committed 
to working with tribal governments to protect and preserve tribal 
traditional hunting, fishing, and gathering rights on tribal ancestral 
homelands. To that end, the Department supports S. 3123.
S. 3126--A bill to amend the Grand Ronde Reservation Act to address the 
        hunting, fishing, trapping, and animal gathering rights of the 
        Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community, and for other 
        purposes
    In 1988, the Grand Ronde Reservation Act (Grand Ronde Act), P.L. 
100-425 established a reservation land base for the Confederated Tribes 
of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon (Grand Ronde or Tribe). Section 
2 of the Grand Ronde Act states that the January 12, 1987 consent 
decree entered into between the State of Oregon and Grand Ronde serves 
as the exclusive and final determination of the Tribe's and its 
members' hunting, fishing, and trapping rights, and that the 
establishment of the Grand Ronde Reservation does not grant or restore 
any rights beyond the consent decree to the Tribe or its members.
    The January 12, 1987 consent decree provides that Tribal members 
may fish using Tribal, rather than State, permits in limited 
geographical areas during State-law fishing seasons, as well as a 
limited right to hunt deer, elk, and bear in limited geographical 
areas. The Tribe has no special trapping rights, limited gathering 
rights, and an option to obtain annual amounts of State-furnished 
salmon. The consent decree otherwise prohibits Tribal hunting, fishing, 
gathering, and trapping activities except as authorized under Oregon 
State law.
    S. 3126 amends Section 2 of the Grand Ronde Act to allow the 
December 2, 1986 agreement between the State, the Tribe, and the United 
States defining the Tribe's hunting, fishing, and trapping rights to be 
amended or replaced upon mutual agreement of the Tribe and the State, 
and allows for the Tribe and the State to return to Oregon Federal 
District Court to modify or terminate the January 12, 1987 consent 
decree based on a new or amended agreement.
    S. 3126 provides an opening for negotiation between the State and 
Grand Ronde regarding Grand Ronde's rights to hunt, fish, gather, and 
trap in their ancestral homelands. It also allows for Grand Ronde to 
come to a new agreement with the State that may permit the Tribe to 
exercise their traditional rights more fully as well as manage hunting, 
fishing, gathering and trapping on their lands. The Biden 
Administration and the Department are committed to working with Tribal 
governments to protect and preserve Tribal traditional hunting, 
fishing, and gathering rights on Tribal ancestral homelands. To that 
end, the Department supports S. 3126.
S. 3273--Agua Caliente Land Exchange Fee to Trust Confirmation Act
    S. 3273 would confirm approximately 2,560 acres of land owned by 
the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (Tribe) in California as 
land held in trust for the benefit of the Tribe. This bill makes it 
clear that the land is a part of the Tribe's reservation. Additionally, 
the bill makes the land ineligible for gaming under the Indian Gaming 
Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C.  2701 et seq.). The Tribe plans to manage 
the land--which is within a national monument area--as conservation 
lands.
    In 1999, the Bureau of Land Management and the Tribe entered into 
an agreement to acquire and exchange lands within what would become the 
Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument, and in 2000, 
legislation was enacted to facilitate the agreement. In March 2019, the 
land transfer to the Tribe was finalized. S. 3273 would simply confirm 
the land transfer and ensure the land is considered part of the Tribe's 
reservation. The Department supports this bill.
S. 3381--Tribal Trust Land Homeownership Act of 2021
    S. 3381 would impose a series of statutory requirements on the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs (Bureau) related to the processing and review 
of mortgage packages. This legislation would codify current processing 
deadlines for mortgages; require an annual report to be submitted to 
Congress regarding the mortgages reviewed by the Bureau; establish a 
Realty Ombudsman position reporting directly to the Secretary; and 
provide access to the Bureau's Trust Asset and Accounting Management 
System (TAAMS) for relevant agencies and tribes.
    We appreciate Congress' shared interest in ensuring that mortgage 
packages are reviewed and processed in a timely manner. Notably, the 
mortgage application review and processing deadlines in this 
legislation are reflected in the Bureau's existing handbooks and 
policy.
    One specific concern the Department has with S. 3381 is that it 
would mandate read-only access to TAAMS for the Department of 
Agriculture, Department of Housing and Urban Development, and 
Department of Veterans Affairs, as well as tribes. The Bureau currently 
provides limited TAAMS access to tribes and relevant agencies after the 
clearance of a background check. Access to TAAMS should be contingent 
on IT security training and limited to avoid Privacy Act issues.
    The Department supports the intent of S. 3381 and looks forward to 
working with the Committee to provide technical assistance.
Conclusion
    Chairman Schatz, Vice Chair Murkowski, and Members of the 
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide the Department's 
views on these important bills. I look forward to answering any 
questions.

    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    Next, we have the Honorable Delores Pigsley, the Chairman 
of the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians in Oregon, 
virtually.

   STATEMENT OF HON. DELORES PIGSLEY, CHAIRMAN, CONFEDERATED 
                    TRIBES OF SILETZ INDIANS

    Ms. Pigsley. Thank you, and it is my pleasure to be able to 
be here to testify on Senate Bill 3123. My name is Delores 
Pigsley. I am the Tribal Chairman for the Confederated Tribes 
of Siletz Indians of Oregon. I represent over 5,500 tribal 
members.
    As you know, our tribe was terminated back in 1954, 
restored in 1977. It was a very difficult time back in 1975 
when the tribe was trying to be restored. We were treated very 
badly by the State of Oregon. We once had a one-million-acre 
reservation in 1855 that dwindled down to practically nothing. 
In order to get the land back during restoration, we had to 
agree to hunting and fishing rights, they gave us absolutely no 
subsistence rights, or no way to gather and to continue 
hunting. Because our tribe was terminated, many of our members 
still did, still practiced hunting, fishing, and helping to 
feed the community. They were arrested, jailed, and sometimes 
given high fines for what they were doing.
    That brings us to today. Our Congressional leaders, the 
Governor, and the State of Oregon recognized the wrong. This is 
an opportunity to right that wrong. The Siletz tribal members 
were raised on deer and elk and seafood. We always fed our 
families based on the community need. We hunted, fished, and 
shared all those foods.
    Today, we are regulated with all of our hunting and fishing 
and gathering rights with the State of Oregon. The only 
unlimited right we have is to gather mussels. Families do that, 
and they share the food with those communities, just like they 
have always done in the past.
    The tribes before you today, Siletz and Grand Ronde, are 
the only tribes in the United States that were forced to agree 
to give up a sovereign right in order to be restored and have 
those small reservations created. It has been a disastrous 
policy for Siletz, as far as termination, restoration. It has 
been 40 years trying to get these rights back.
    All we want for Siletz is to be treated equally, like other 
tribes, whether that is good or bad. We know there are bad 
treatments. But we are in this to establish equal rights for 
our tribe in order to be able to hunt and fish and gather as we 
traditional did for time immemorial.
    We look forward to the opportunity to answer any questions. 
This has been a long process, and we are very hopeful that this 
group will be able to support the legislation to recognize our 
rights, and to give us back those rights that we lost.
    We thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Pigsley follows:]

  Prepared Statement of Hon. Delores Pigsley, Chairman, Confederated 
                        Tribes of Siletz Indians
    My name is Delores Pigsley and I am Chairman of the Tribal Council 
for the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians. My tribe is a 
confederation of all the bands and tribes of western Oregon that were 
removed to the Siletz Reservation. If still intact, this reservation 
would be the largest in Oregon at over 1 million acres.
    In 1954, Congress terminated federal recognition of the Siletz 
Tribe and all of its antecedent bands and tribes. In 1977, Congress 
restored federal recognition to Siletz. While we were the first tribe 
in Oregon to be restored, and the second in the nation, it came at a 
very high price.
Restoration by Congress
    Siletz' restoration effort coincided with the Indian ``fishing 
wars'' on the Columbia River and in Washington State--where federal 
courts were upholding Indian treaty fishing rights. The Oregon 
Department of Fish & Wildlife (ODFW) joined other states in asking 
Congress to overturn these court decisions at a national level. 
Similarly, ODFW opposed Siletz' restoration and insisted that the newly 
restored Siletz Tribe give up its hunting/fishing rights to become 
restored and to obtain a small reservation.
    The original discussion draft of a Siletz Restoration Act 
circulated by the Tribe in 1975 would have restored tribal hunting/
fishing rights. However, ODFW objected to this language and Siletz 
adopted neutral language that neither granted nor diminishes any tribal 
hunting right. This would have left any hunting/fishing right that 
survived termination unaffected. A year later, the House Report on the 
Siletz Restoration Act discussed this language:

        ``Finally, the committee wishes to emphasize the intent of the 
        legislation to be neutral on the question of hunting and 
        fishing rights for the Siletz Tribe. If the Siletz Tribe had a 
        treaty or other special hunting or fishing right which was 
        terminated by the termination Act of August 13, 1954 (69 Stat. 
        724), this legislation does not restore such right. If the 
        Siletz Tribe had such a special right prior to termination 
        which survived the Termination Act, this legislation does not 
        abrogate or impair such a right.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ H.R. Report No. 623, 95th Congress, 1st Session; September 23, 
1977; House Committee on Interior & Insular Affairs

    At this point, ODFW accelerated its opposition to the Siletz 
Restoration Act--and insisted that Congress expressly extinguish any 
pre-existing hunting/fishing rights Siletz might still have. This would 
have engendered national tribal opposition; and what ODFW didn't 
achieve in the actual Restoration Act, it achieved in the Consent 
Decree. Moreover, in 1976, ODFW even proposed alternative legislation 
that would have made individual Siletz Indians eligible for federal 
Indian benefits/services, but would not have restored the Siletz Tribe 
itself.
    ODFW also objected to the restoration of a Siletz Reservation 
because of the State's fear of tribal exercise of sovereignty over its 
own land. The restoration act was eventually amended to eliminate the 
specific creation of a reservation for Siletz and did not itself 
restore any land to Siletz. Instead, the Restoration Act called for a 
two-year study followed by congressional action before a reservation 
could be created.
    With changes made to accommodate ODFW, Congress passed the Siletz 
Restoration Act on November 18, 1977. The final legislative language on 
hunting/fishing reads:

        ``This Act shall not grant or restore any hunting, fishing, or 
        trapping right of any nature, including any indirect or 
        procedural right or advantage, to the tribe or any member of 
        the tribe, nor shall it be construed as granting, establishing, 
        or restoring a reservation for the tribe.''

Negotiating the Siletz Reservation Act
    Following congressional restoration, the Siletz Tribe adopted a 
constitution, elected a tribal governing body and began focusing on 
establishment of a reservation so it could assume full status as a 
federally recognized tribe.
    As parties negotiated the creation of a reservation for Siletz--the 
study of which was authorized in the Restoration Act--ODFW continued 
its demand for the extinction of the Siletz Tribe's hunting/fishing 
rights. It even suggested monetizing the Tribe's rights and having the 
federal government forcibly buy those rights and compensate tribal 
members.
    Other state agencies appeared to agree on legislative language that 
included a neutrality clause that did not grant any new hunting/fishing 
rights but left any pre-existing hunting/fishing rights for future 
determination, if ever. The Oregon Attorney General had determined that 
the Siletz Tribe probably maintained pre-termination hunting rights on 
at least the land it still possessed at the time of termination. The AG 
wrote that while the Reservation Act (as drafted) would not create any 
new rights, ``any pre-existing rights would continue to exist.''
    Based on fear of constituent backlash, Rep. Les AuCoin (D-OR) 
blocked passage of the Reservation Act until ODFW agreed with the 
extent of Siletz hunting/fishing rights, giving it a veto over those 
rights. Siletz' hunting/fishing rights were essentially terminated. 
This ultimately led to Siletz being forced to a near-total 
extinguishment of its hunting/fishing rights as a condition to 
obtaining a small reservation.
    The result was a hunting/fishing agreement between Siletz and the 
State of Oregon. It allows the Tribe to only take up to 200 salmon a 
year for cultural and subsistence purposes, and bans tribal members 
from exercising even these limited rights on the main-stem Siletz River 
because tribal members' presence and fishing might offend or anger non-
Indian fishers. The agreement also allows for the Tribe's annual 
harvest of up to 25 elk and up to 400 deer (minus the number of elk 
taken).
Federal Court Decree and Order
    Siletz Tribe v. Oregon (Civil No. 80-422 [May 2, 1980]) was the 
result of a ``friendly'' lawsuit between the parties, which ODFW 
insisted on to make the Agreement it demanded beyond challenge. The 
court order/decree enshrines the hunting/fishing agreement entered into 
between the State and Siletz Tribe (dated April 22, 1980). The original 
agreement was drafted by ODFW and makes it difficult or impossible to 
amend or overturn:

        ``[The Siletz Tribe and its members] are hereby permanently 
        enjoined from asserting or prosecuting any claim for tribal 
        [hunting/fishing rights] of said Tribe or its members other 
        than as such rights are specified and limited by the terms of 
        said Agreement.''

Siletz Reservation Act [P.L. 96-340 [1980])
    In addition to the court order/decree, the hunting/fishing 
agreement with the State of Oregon was also codified into the Siletz 
Reservation Act passed by Congress later in 1980:

        ``The establishment of the Siletz Reservation or the addition 
        of lands to the reservation in the future, shall not grant or 
        restore to the tribe or any member of the tribe any new or 
        additional hunting, fishing, or trapping right of any nature, 
        including any indirect or procedural right or advantage, on 
        such reservation beyond the rights which are declared and set 
        forth in the final judgment and decree of the United States 
        District Court for the District of Oregon, in the action 
        entitled Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon 
        against State of Oregon, entered on May 2, 1980. Those rights 
        as declared and set forth in the May 2,1980, final judgment and 
        decree shall constitute the exclusive and final determination 
        of all tribal rights to hunt, fish, or trap that the Siletz 
        Tribe or its members possess.''

    This provision impedes the Siletz Tribe from exercising any treaty 
hunting/fishing rights that it may possess and has never given up.
    Recently the Governor of Oregon and ODFW have agreed that this 
original 1980 hunting/fishing agreement is unconscionable and contrary 
to the State's policy to acknowledge and recognize tribal rights. The 
State supports the Tribe's efforts to overturn the 1980 Agreement and 
replace it with a more equitable agreement.
Siletz Tribe's Legislative Request
    There are three components of the Siletz Tribe's effort to overturn 
its 1980 Consent Decree:

        1. Rescinding Language in the Siletz Reservation Act that 
        Incorporates the 1980 Consent Decree.

    The 1980 Siletz Reservation Act incorporates the Consent Decree 
into the legislation and states that it is the final statement of 
Siletz HFT&G Rights. This makes that legislation independent authority 
on the Tribe's HFT&G Rights, over and above the federal court Consent 
Decree. Therefore the Tribe needs to have this legislative language 
rescinded to overturn its 1980 Consent Decree. S. 3123 strikes the 
relevant provision from the 1980 Siletz Reservation Act, P.L. 86-340.

        2. Replacing the 1980 HFT&G Agreement with A Different 
        Arrangement.

    The Siletz Tribe has already drafted a proposed replacement 
agreement--to be entered into with the State--and has been discussing 
the language of that draft with ODFW and various stakeholders. S. 3123 
protects the interests of other parties by providing that the 1980 
HFT&G Agreement does not go away until a new Agreement has been 
finalized and approved by ODFW.

        3. Vacating the 1980 Federal Court Consent Decree.

    Congress cannot directly overturn a previous federal court decree 
and judgment. The State of Oregon, the United States--as trustee for 
the Siletz Tribe, and the Siletz Tribe were parties to the original 
court decree and will have to approach the federal court together to 
vacate that decree. The Tribe is in discussions with the State and 
federal government to jointly petition the federal court to vacate the 
1980 Consent Decree under FRCP 60(b)(6) and believes the State and 
federal government will support that effort, but that is ultimately the 
discretionary decision of those governments. S. 3123 provides only that 
if such a petition is filed, the federal court can consider that 
petition without first having to address technical legal obstacles such 
as res judicata that might limit the court's authority to entertain the 
joint petition. This limited legislative approach has been upheld by 
the Supreme Court in the 1980 Sioux Nation decision.
Support for legislation
    The Siletz Tribe has been in active discussions with the State of 
Oregon regarding a potential replacement agreement. We believe that the 
State is supportive of this legislation and allowing a process for 
Siletz to determine its hunting and fishing rights.
    We have also had extensive government-to-government discussions 
with the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, the Confederated Tribes 
of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon and the Confederated Tribes of 
the Umatilla Indian Reservation regarding this legislation.
    We are insistent that any replacement agreement after enactment 
respect the rights of other tribes and not negatively impact them.
    The Siletz Tribe is deeply grateful to the support from our 
congressional delegation to right this historic wrong.

    The Chairman. Thank you very much for your testimony.
    Next, we have the Honorable Cheryle Kennedy, the Chairwoman 
of the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde in Oregon.

  STATEMENT OF HON. CHERYLE KENNEDY, CHAIRWOMAN, CONFEDERATED 
                     TRIBES OF GRAND RONDE

    Ms. Kennedy. Good afternoon, everyone. I want to thank the 
Committee for this opportunity to present testimony before you 
today. I just for the record want to state that we have 
provided written comments, along with letters of support from 
two western Oregon tribes, and our two local county 
governments.
    Thank you, Chairman Schatz, Vice Chairman Murkowski, and 
members of the Committee. My name is Cheryle Kennedy. I am the 
tribal council chairwoman of the Confederated Tribes of Grand 
Ronde in Oregon. Our tribe is located on the Grand Ronde 
Reservation in Polk and Yamhill Counties.
    Before I present my testimony, I want to thank Senator 
Merkley for his generous introduction. Grand Ronde has worked 
with the Senator for many years. Both our Council and our 
tribal members are grateful for the longstanding partnership 
that we have developed with him.
    Grand Ronde appreciates the opportunity to testify today in 
support of S. 3126, which would amend the Grand Ronde 
Reservation Act to address hunting and fishing issues involving 
our Tribe. Before you is a similar bill that Grand Ronde also 
supports, S. 3123, which addresses the same hunting and fishing 
issues involving the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians.
    The objectives of these two bills are very simple. They 
would permit both Tribes to negotiate new hunting and fishing 
agreements with the State of Oregon. In place today are Grand 
Ronde and Siletz hunting and fishing agreements with the State 
that are more than 35 years old. These agreements have 
provisions in them that prohibit any amendments or 
modifications. These two bills simply authorize a process to 
permit Grand Ronde and Siletz to amend these older agreements 
and negotiate updated hunting and fishing arrangements that 
meet the needs of both the State of Oregon and the Tribes.
    I am sure you are curious about why Grand Ronde and Siletz 
are the only tribes in the Country that are not able to 
negotiate hunting and fishing issues with the State in which 
their respective reservations are located. Here is the history.
    In 1954, both tribes were terminated by Congress, along 
with other tribes in western Oregon. In the 1980s, Congress 
reversed itself and legislatively restored both tribes. At that 
time, the Congress was considering these measures, the State of 
Oregon demanded that each tribe sign a permanent agreement with 
significant restrictions on their hunting and fishing and 
rights. Only then would the State support Congressional 
legislation to return to the tribes a small part of their 
historic land base.
    Grand Ronde leaders were left with no choice but to sign 
such an agreement. I was on the tribal council during this time 
and agreed with other tribal members to believe that this 
bargain with the State was one made with a gun to our heads. 
The 1970s and 1980s were a time when the Oregon tribes and the 
State were frequently at odds on hunting and fishing issues. 
Oregon tribes had achieved victories in several tribal hunting 
and fishing lawsuits, and the State was frustrated with its 
loss in Federal court. Over several decades now, the tribal-
State relationship has improved dramatically.
    In particular, Grand Ronde has been recognized by the 
Oregon Department of Fishing and Wildlife as an exceptional 
land manager and worked diligently and successfully to restore 
critical wildlife habitat in western Oregon. These 
accomplishments have been achieved while working under the 
unwieldy regulatory framework established in the tribe's 1986 
agreement with the State.
    These circumstances have changed significantly over the 
years, the past 30 to 40 years. The tribe would like to have 
the ability to amend and modernize our hunting and fishing 
agreements with the State of Oregon. This will only occur if 
the Grand Ronde and Siletz Reservation Acts are amended.
    The proposed legislation does not mandate or recommend 
specific hunting and fishing terms, and any new agreement 
between the State and tribes. Instead, both bills would amend 
each tribe's restoration act to permit these 1980 and 1986 
hunting agreements to be replaced, amended, or otherwise 
modified through new agreements between government and 
government. Once our new hunting and fishing agreements are 
executed, the legislation contemplates that the State and the 
tribe would return to the Federal court to request the 
termination or modification of the consent decree currently in 
place. A provision of this bill facilitates that process.
    This proposed legislation also states that these 
reservation act amendments do not alter or change treaty rights 
of any other Indian tribes.
    We urge your support for the passage of this bill today. We 
are open and available for any comments or questions you might 
have. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Kennedy follows:]

 Prepared Statement of Hon. Cheryle Kennedy, Chairwoman, Confederated 
                         Tribes of Grand Ronde
    Chairman Schatz, Vice Chairman Murkowski, and Members of the 
Committee, my name is Cheryle Kennedy and I am the Tribal Council 
Chairwoman of the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde (``Grand Ronde'' 
or ``Tribe''). Our Tribe is located on the Grand Ronde Reservation in 
Polk and Yamhill Counties within the State of Oregon.
    Before I present my testimony, please let me take a moment to thank 
Senator Merkley for his generous introduction. Grand Ronde has worked 
with the Senator for many years now and both our Council and our tribal 
members are grateful for the long-standing partnership we have 
developed with him.
    Grand Ronde appreciates the opportunity to testify today in support 
of S. 3126, which would amend the Grand Ronde Reservation Act to 
address hunting and fishing issues involving our Tribe. Before you is a 
similar bill that Grand Ronde also supports, S. 3123, which addresses 
the same hunting and fishing issues involving the Confederated Tribes 
of Siletz Indians (``Siletz'').
    The objectives of these two bills are very simple. They would 
permit both Tribes to negotiate new hunting and fishing agreements with 
the State of Oregon. In place today are Grand Ronde and Siletz hunting 
and fishing agreements with the State that are more than 35 years old. 
These agreements have provisions in them that prohibit any amendments 
or modifications. In other words, these are permanent agreements that 
cannot be changed. S. 3126 and S. 3123 simply authorize a process to 
permit Grand Ronde and Siletz to amend these older agreements and 
negotiate updated hunting and fishing arrangements that meet the needs 
of both the State of Oregon and the Tribes.
    I am sure you are curious about why Grand Ronde and Siletz are the 
only Tribes in the country that are not able to negotiate hunting and 
fishing issues with the state in which their respective reservations 
are located. Here is the history.
    In 1954, both Tribes were terminated by Congress, along with other 
tribes in western Oregon. \1\ In the 1980's, Congress reversed itself 
and legislatively restored both Tribes. The Siletz were first, restored 
by the Siletz Indian Tribe Restoration Act in 1977. \2\ Congress then 
passed the Grand Ronde Restoration Act in 1983. \3\ These two 
enactments restored Federal recognition to both Tribes and re-applied 
the Indian Reorganization Act and other federal laws of general 
applicability to both Tribes and their members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Public Law 83-588 (Aug. 13, 1954), originally codified at 25 
U.S.C.  691, et seq.
    \2\ Public Law 95-195 (Nov. 18, 1977), originally codified at 25 
U.S.C.  711, et seq.
    \3\ Public Law 98-165 (Nov. 22, 1983), originally codified at 25 
U.S.C.  713, et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Both the Siletz and Grand Ronde Restoration Acts required that the 
reservations for both Tribes would be re-established by subsequent 
Congressional legislation. After each Tribe developed a Reservation 
Plan with local and State input, Congress passed the Siletz Reservation 
Act in 1980, \4\ and the Grand Ronde Reservation Act in 1988. \5\ At 
the time that Congress was considering these measures, the State of 
Oregon demanded that each Tribe sign a permanent agreement with 
significant restrictions on their hunting and fishing rights. Only then 
would the State support Congressional legislation to return to the 
Tribes a small part of their historic land base.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Public Law 96-340 (Sept. 4, 1980), originally codified at 25 
U.S.C.  711e note.
    \5\ Public Law 100-425 (Sept. 9, 1988), originally codified at 25 
U.S.C.  713f note.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Siletz signed its hunting and fishing agreement in 1980. Six 
years later, when faced with the alternative of either signing a 
restrictive hunting and fishing agreement or receiving no reservation 
land back, Grand Ronde leaders were left with no choice but to sign 
such an agreement. I was on the Tribal Council during this time and I 
agreed with other Tribal members who believed that this bargain with 
the State was one made with ``a gun to our head.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Ron Karten, ``Tribal Hunting & Fishing Rights,'' at 8, Smoke 
Signals (Oct. 1, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For the record, let me now summarize the details of this unique 
hunting and fishing regulatory framework.
The Siletz Hunting and Fishing Agreement
    The Siletz executed their Hunting and Fishing Agreement in April of 
1980. \7\ This Agreement contained language in multiple provisions 
stating that this would be a permanent agreement that could not be 
amended, even if circumstances changed over time. This Agreement was 
approved by a Federal Court shortly thereafter and a Consent Decree was 
issued by the Court on May 2, 1980. \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Agreement Among the State of Oregon, the United States of 
America and the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon to 
Permanently Define Tribal Hunting, Fishing, Trapping, and Gathering 
Rights of the Siletz Tribe and its Members (Apr. 22, 1980).
    \8\ Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon v. State of 
Oregon, No. 80-433 (D. Or. May 2, 1980) (final decree & order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This Agreement was also ratified through Section 4 of the Siletz 
Reservation Act, which incorporated the May 2 consent decree. \9\ 
Section 4 states that the Agreement and the consent decree ``shall 
constitute the exclusive and final determination of all tribal rights 
to hunt, fish, or trap that the Siletz Tribe or its members possess.'' 
\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ Section 4 of Public Law 96-340 (Sept. 4, 1980).
    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Grand Ronde Hunting and Fishing Agreement
    When the Grand Ronde Reservation Act was under consideration by 
Congress in 1986, the same process was used to define the hunting and 
fishing rights of Grand Ronde and its members. The Grand Ronde Hunting 
and Fishing Agreement was executed by the Tribe in December of 1986. 
\11\ Except for the geographical areas covered, the Grand Ronde 
Agreement is almost identical to the earlier Siletz Agreement. Like the 
Siletz, this Hunting and Fishing Agreement was approved by a Federal 
Court shortly thereafter and a Consent Decree was issued by the Court 
on January 12, 1987. \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ Agreement Among the State of Oregon, the United States of 
America and the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of 
Oregon to Permanently Define Tribal Hunting, Fishing, Trapping and 
Animal Gathering Rights of the Tribe and its Members (Dec. 2, 1986).
    \12\ Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon v. 
State of Oregon, No. 8_-___ (D. Or. Jan. 12, 1987) (final decree & 
order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Again, similar to Siletz, this Agreement was ratified through 
Section 2 of the Grand Ronde Reservation Act, also incorporating the 
January 12 Consent Decree. \13\ Section 2 of the Act states that the 
Grand Ronde Agreement and the Consent Decree ``shall constitute the 
exclusive and final determination of all tribal rights to hunt, fish, 
and trap that the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of 
Oregon or its members possess.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Grand Ronde Reservation Act, Section 2, Public Law 100-425 
(Sept. 9, 1988).
    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The 1970s and 1980s were a time when Oregon Tribes and the State 
were frequently at odds on hunting and fishing issues. Oregon Tribes 
had achieved victories in several tribal hunting and fishing lawsuits 
and the State was frustrated with its losses in Federal courts. One 
example of the State's hostility can be found in a 1975 news article 
about Siletz restoration legislation being considered by Congress. \15\ 
When asked about these efforts, Oregon State Wildlife Director, John 
McKean, responded by saying its ``Circle the wagons, boys, here they 
come again.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ Pete Cornacchia, ``Poor who?'' Eugene Register-Guard (Nov. 25, 
1975).
    \16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Over several decades now, the Tribal-State relationship has 
improved dramatically. In particular, Grand Ronde has been recognized 
by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife as an exceptional land 
manager and has worked diligently and successfully to restore critical 
wildlife habitat in western Oregon. And these accomplishments have been 
achieved while working under the unwieldy regulatory framework 
established in the Tribe's 1986 agreement with the State. Every time we 
work with the State on a new initiative, our tribal attorneys must find 
a workaround to the 1986 Agreement--a time-consuming process. Likewise, 
the State is forced to enact regulations to implement new tribal 
arrangements, instead of simply amending a government-to-government 
agreement with the Tribe.
1S. 3126 and S. 3123, Amendments to the Grand Ronde and Siletz 
        Reservation Acts
    In the opinion of Grand Ronde and Siletz, and as described above, 
both Tribes were forced into agreeing to the 1980 and 1986 Hunting and 
Fishing Agreements, in order to secure approval of their Reservation 
Acts. Circumstances have changed significantly over the past 35-40 
years and the Tribes would like to have the ability to amend and 
modernize their hunting and fishing agreements with the State of 
Oregon. This can only occur if the Grand Ronde and Siletz Reservation 
Acts are amended.
    The proposed legislation does not mandate or recommend specific 
hunting and fishing terms in any new agreements between the State and 
the Tribes. Instead, both bills would amend each Tribe's Reservation 
Acts to permit these 1980 and 1986 Hunting and Fishing Agreements to be 
replaced, amended, or otherwise modified through new government-to-
government agreements between the Tribes and the State.
    Once new hunting and fishing agreements are executed, the 
legislation contemplates that the State and the Tribes would return to 
Federal Court to request the termination or modification of the Consent 
Decrees currently in place. A provision of this bill facilitates that 
process.
    The proposed legislation also states that these Reservation Act 
amendments do not alter or change the treaty rights of any other Indian 
Tribe.
Conclusion
    On behalf of Grand Ronde, we hope the Members of the Committee on 
Indian Affairs will support both of these bills and vote them favorably 
out of Committee.
    Thank you for the opportunity to present our Tribe's views on S. 
3126 and S. 3123. I am happy to answer any questions that the Members 
of the Committee may have.

    The Chairman. Thank you very much, Chairwoman.
    Next, we have the Honorable Reid Milanovich, the Vice 
Chairman of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indian Tribal 
Council in Palm Springs, California.

STATEMENT OF HON. REID MILANOVICH, VICE CHAIRMAN, AGUA CALIENTE 
                    BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS

    Mr. Milanovich. Good afternoon, Chairman Schatz, and Vice 
Chair Murkowski, and distinguished members of the Committee. My 
name is Reid Milanovich, and I am the elected Vice Chairman of 
the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians. Thank you for the 
opportunity to provide testimony on behalf of the tribe 
regarding S. 3273, an act to take certain lands in California 
into trust for the benefit of the Agua Caliente Band of 
Cahuilla Indians and for other purposes.
    First, I would like to thank Senators Padilla and Feinstein 
for sponsoring S. 3273. The bill is a non-controversial 
legislation that authorizes the United States to take 
approximately 2,560 acres of land owned by the tribe into trust 
and to make the lands part of the Agua Caliente Indian 
Reservation.
    On December 8th, 2021, the House of Representatives passed 
H.R. 897 via suspension. H.R. 897 is the House counterpart to 
S. 3273, and we hope the Senate will consider acting soon.
    The ancestors of my tribe thrived in the deserts and 
canyons of what is now known as the Coachella Valley. The Agua 
Caliente Indian Reservation was established in 1876. The tribe, 
based what has become the greater Palm Springs area, is a 
historic Indian tribe that is a steward for thousands of acres 
of our ancestral lands, spanning many city and county 
jurisdictions.
    The nearby Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National 
Monument was established in 2000. The legislation establishing 
the monument rightfully acknowledges the special cultural value 
of the mountains to the tribe, including significant cultural 
sites, village sites, and petroglyphs located there. The tribe 
has worked hard to preserve the resources and values of our 
mountains and has made significant contributions to the 
cooperative management of these lands
    The legislation establishing the national monument provided 
land-exchange authorization that allowed the Bureau of Land 
Management, BLM, and the Tribe to exchange federally owned 
property for tribally owned property. However, due to a 
drafting error the legislation did not expressly address the 
status of any land transferred to the tribe through such an 
exchange. The authorizing language should have included text 
mandating that such exchanged lands be held in trust by the 
United States for the exclusive benefit of the tribe.
    BLM and the tribe worked for 17 years, from 2002 to 2019, 
to finalize a Binding Exchange Agreement for these 2,560 acres 
that are the subject of S. 3273. Through a consolidation 
process of checkerboard land ownership in and around the 
tribe's Reservation, the Exchange will allow for more logical 
and consistent land management by the tribe and the BLM. Having 
adjacent squares within the checkerboard allows tribal 
management to be more efficient and provides for jurisdictional 
consistency within a more manageable geographic area.
    The Exchange lands now owned in fee status by the tribe 
have longstanding cultural and natural resource value to the 
Cahuilla people. Taking these lands into trust as part of the 
reservation has been thoroughly vetted in the surrounding 
community. Any concerns regarding public access have also been 
addressed, and there is no known opposition to this 
legislation.
    The Tribe has a long-recognized history of maintaining 
public access to trails within the monument boundary and will 
continue this commitment to the lands in question. In fact, 
changing or curtailing public access to trails on the land is 
not feasible or practical, given its remote nature.
    Finally, S. 3273 does not allow these remote lands to be 
used for gaming purposes.
    The lands at issue in S. 3273 are located within the 
exterior boundaries of the Reservation and have longstanding 
cultural and natural resources value to the Cahuilla people. 
Making these lands part of the Reservation will allow for more 
logical and consistent management by the tribe.
    Thank you for your time and for the opportunity to testify 
in support of S. 3273. I am happy to answer any questions that 
you may have.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Milanovich follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Hon. Reid Milanovich, Vice Chairman, Agua 
                   Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
    Good afternoon Chairman Schatz, Vice Chairman Murkowski, and 
distinguished members of the Committee. My name is Reid Milanovich, and 
I am the elected Vice Chairman of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla 
Indians (Tribe). Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on 
behalf of the Tribe regarding S. 3273--an act to take certain lands in 
California into trust for the benefit of the Agua Caliente Band of 
Cahuilla Indians and for other purposes.
    First, I would like to thank Senators Padilla and Feinstein for 
sponsoring S. 3273. The bill is non-controversial legislation that 
authorizes the United States to take approximately 2,560 acres of land 
owned by the Tribe into trust for the Tribe and make those lands part 
of the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation. The Tribe strongly supports S. 
3273, and we urge you to support this bill as well. On December 8, 2021 
the House of Representatives passed H.R. 897 via suspension. H.R. 897 
is the House counterpart to S. 3273, and we hope the Senate will 
consider acting soon to pass this important legislation that will allow 
the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians to improve management of its 
wilderness areas.
    To begin, I would like to share with you the history of these lands 
and their importance to the Tribe. The ancestors of my Tribe thrived in 
the desert and canyons of what is now known as the Coachella Valley. 
The Agua Caliente Indian Reservation was established in 1876. The 
Tribe--based in what has become the greater Palm Springs area--is a 
historic Indian tribe that is a steward for thousands of acres of our 
ancestral lands, spanning many city and county jurisdictions.
    The nearby Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument 
was established in 2000. The legislation establishing the Monument 
rightfully acknowledges the special cultural value of the mountains to 
the Tribe, including significant cultural sites, village sites, and 
petroglyphs located there. The Tribe has worked hard to preserve the 
resources and values of our mountains and has made significant 
contributions to the cooperative management of these lands. The Tribe 
was a Member of the National Monument Advisory Committee, the National 
Monument Management Plan Steering Committee, and participated in the 
development of the National Monument Science Plan. Moreover, the Tribe 
has provided interpretive panels for the Monument and sponsors an 
annual festival for a non-profit which supports the Monument.
    The legislation establishing the National Monument provided land-
exchange authorization that allowed the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 
and the Tribe to exchange federally-owned property for Tribally-owned 
property. However, due to a drafting error the legislation did not 
expressly address the status of any land transferred to the Tribe 
through such an exchange. The authorizing language should have included 
text mandating that such exchanged lands be held in trust by the United 
States for the exclusive benefit of the Tribe. BLM and the Tribe worked 
for 17 years, from 2002 to 2019, to finalize a Binding Exchange 
Agreement (Exchange) for these 2,560 acres that are the subject of S. 
3273. Through a consolidation of ``checkerboard'' land ownership in and 
around the Tribe's Reservation, the Exchange will allow for more 
logical and consistent land management by the Tribe and the BLM. Having 
adjacent squares within the ``checkerboard'' allows Tribal management 
to be more efficient and provides for jurisdictional consistency within 
a more manageable geographic area. The Exchange lands now owned in fee 
status by the Tribe have longstanding cultural and natural resource 
value to the Cahuilla people. S. 3273 allows these Exchange Lands, now 
owned by the Tribe, to be taken into trust and made a part of the 
Tribe's Reservation.
    Taking these lands into trust as part of the Reservation has been 
thoroughly vetted in the surrounding community. Any concerns regarding 
public access have also been addressed, and there is no known 
opposition to this legislation. The Tribe has a long-recognized history 
of maintaining public access to trails within the Monument boundary and 
will continue this commitment to the Exchange lands in question. In 
fact, changing or curtailing public access to trails on the land is not 
feasible or practical, given its remote nature. Finally, S. 3273 does 
not allow these remote lands to be used for gaming purposes.
    In conclusion, the lands at issue in S. 3273 are located within the 
exterior boundaries of the Reservation and have longstanding cultural 
and natural resources value to the Cahuilla people. Making these lands 
part of the Reservation will allow for more logical and consistent 
management by the Tribe. Thank you for your time and for the 
opportunity to testify in support of S. 3273. I am happy to answer any 
questions that you may have.

    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    Finally, we have Sharon Vogel, the Executive Director of 
the Cheyenne River Housing Authority, in Eagle Butte, South 
Dakota.

 STATEMENT OF SHARON VOGEL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CHEYENNE RIVER 
                       HOUSING AUTHORITY

    Ms. Vogel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Madam Vice Chair, and 
members of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. My name is 
Sharon Vogel. I am the Executive Director of the Cheyenne River 
Housing Authority in Eagle Butte, South Dakota, on the Cheyenne 
River Sioux Reservation.
    I appear today on behalf of the South Dakota Native 
Homeownership Coalition to express our strong support for 
Senate Bill 3381, the Tribal Trust Land Homeownership Act of 
2021.
    Before I begin, I would like to thank Senate Thune and his 
staff for his leadership on this bill to promote homeownership 
opportunities for Native people living on tribal land. I also 
want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, along with Senators Thune, 
Rounds, Smith, Tester, Cramer, Cortez Masto, and Warren, for 
cosponsoring Senate Bill 2092, the Native American Rural 
Homeownership Improvement Act of 2021, which would make the 
very successful USDA 502 Relending Demonstration permanent and 
authorize USDA to expand the program to Native communities 
nationwide, including Native Hawaiian homesteads and Alaska 
Native villages.
    Our Native CDFI, Four Bands Community Fund, was able to 
borrow $800,000 in capital from USDA, leverage it and re-lend 
it to 11 eligible borrowers, totaling $1.2 million in loan 
volume. The 11 loans deployed through this partnership in two 
years was nearly four times as many mortgage loans as USDA 
deployed on its own directly in the previous decade.
    Four Bands has since documented a pipeline of nearly $7 
million in mortgage financing without any marketing or 
advertising. We are hearing similar levels of demand from the 
Native CDFIs in our neighboring state of Montana, nearly $9 
million. This is a powerful indication of the demand for 
homeownership.
    Accordingly, we urge Congress to enact Senate Bill 2092 to 
make this important and much-needed source of capital available 
to Native families in rural communities across Indian Country 
as soon as possible.
    One other word of recognition. I would like to thank 
Senator Rounds and his staff for their hard work on reforming 
the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Native American Direct 
Loan Program.
    Now I would like to talk about Senate Bill 3381. We 
appreciate the emphasis this bill places on designing and 
implementing the Bureau of Indian Affairs' processes in a way 
that is compatible with private mortgage industry practices. 
Native people should be able to enter mortgage transactions 
just as any other citizen in this Country.
    Unfortunately, that is not always the case due to the 
delays and inconsistencies with the BIA processes. Senate Bill 
3381 will go a long way to build on the momentum we are seeing 
across Indian Country to increase the homeownership rates of 
Native families. Overall, we applaud the legislation for 
prioritizing the mortgage processes within the BIA and setting 
a tone of accountability.
    The following provisions have potential to offer great 
solutions. The bill establishes timelines for review and 
processing guidelines for mortgage related documents. It also 
mandates an annual report to Congress about the volume of 
mortgage package documents and whether the applicable timelines 
were met. We appreciate the inclusion of this Congressional 
oversight, and hope that it is adequate to ensure compliance 
with these statutory requirements.
    We strongly support the provision that would require BIA to 
give tribes and Federal agencies read-only access to the Trust 
Asset and Account Management System.
    Another key element we are pleased to see is the 
requirement for the first certified tribal status report to be 
issued within 14 days. Receiving this document from the BIA has 
varied widely by BIA regions from 30 days to 365 days or more 
in many cases. We strongly support the bill's mandate for a GAO 
study about the need and cost for the digitalization of 
mortgage related documents. The BIA must modernize and enter 
today's world of technology, so that it can provide timely 
services to support homeownership transactions for Native 
families.
    Often, homebuyers on trust land feel like their mortgage 
packages fall into a black hole somewhere within the depths of 
BIA. Therefore, we strongly support the establishment of the 
realty ombudsman to ensure compliance with timeframes and to 
receive inquiries from tribal citizens, tribes, lenders, and 
others. It will be important, however, for this position to 
have the authority to take action where appropriate.
    In conclusion, the South Dakota Native Homeownership 
Coalition would like to offer one additional suggestion. As 
Congress works toward enactment of this legislation, we 
encourage the Committee to create an advisory group to work 
with the BIA to identify antiquated leasing regulations that 
are no longer needed due to the evolution of tribal governments 
and sophistication of tribal borrowers. We hope the Committee 
will consider amendments to authorize the creation of such an 
effort.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify. We look forward 
to working with each of you to improve homeownership 
opportunities for Native people, wherever they may reside. I 
would be happy to answer any of your questions.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Vogel follows:]

Prepared Statement of Sharon Vogel, Executive Director, Cheyenne River 
                           Housing Authority
Introduction
    Mr. Chairman, Madame Vice Chair, and members of the Senate 
Committee on Indian Affairs, my name is Sharon Vogel. I am the 
executive director of the Cheyenne River Housing Authority in Eagle 
Butte, SD on the Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation. I appear today on 
behalf of the South Dakota Native Homeownership Coalition to express 
our strong support for S. 3381, the Tribal Trust Land Homeownership Act 
of 2021.
    I am also the Chairwoman of the United Native American Housing 
Association (UNAHA), with 33 member tribally designated housing 
entities (TDHEs) from the states of North and South Dakota, Nebraska, 
Montana, Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado. In addition, I am serving my 
first term on the Board of Directors of the National Low Income Housing 
Coalition (NLIHC) and continue my service as a Board Member of the 
National American Indian Housing Council (NAIHC).
    Before I begin, I would like to thank Senator Thune and his staff 
from my home state of South Dakota for his leadership on this bill to 
promote homeownership opportunities for Native people living on tribal 
land. Both of our South Dakota Senators--Senator Thune and Senator 
Rounds--have visited the Cheyenne River Reservation many times and have 
seen firsthand the challenges we have with providing safe and sanitary 
housing for our tribal members. We are so appreciative that they both 
recognize that any good housing development strategy in Indian Country 
must include homeownership as a component.
    I also want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, along with Senators Thune, 
Rounds, Smith, Tester, Cramer, Cortez Masto, and Warren for co-
sponsoring S. 2092, the Native American Rural Homeownership Improvement 
Act of 2021, which would make the very successful USDA 502 relending 
demonstration permanent and authorize USDA to expand the program to 
Native communities nationwide, including to Native Hawaiian Homesteads 
and Alaska Native Villages. Two Native community development financial 
institutions (Native CDFIs) participated in this $2 million 
demonstration. One of them, Four Bands Community Fund, the Native CDFI 
serving the Cheyenne River Reservation, was able to borrow $800,000 in 
capital from USDA, leverage it with funds from the State of South 
Dakota's Housing Opportunity Fund, and relend it to 11 eligible 
borrowers, totaling $1,271,779.79 in loan volume. The 11 loans deployed 
through this partnership in two years were nearly four times as many 
mortgage loans as USDA deployed on its own directly in the previous 
decade.
    Since the completion of this pilot, Four Bands has documented a 
pipeline of nearly $7 million in mortgage financing without any 
marketing or advertising--all by word of mouth--a powerful indication 
of the demand for homeownership in our small community of less than 
12,000 tribal members and we are hearing similar levels of demand from 
the Native CDFIs in our neighboring state of Montana--nearly $9 
million. Accordingly, we urge Congress to enact S. 2092 to make this 
important and much-needed source of capital available to Native 
families in rural communities across Indian Country as soon as 
possible.
    One other word of recognition--I'd like to thank Senator Rounds and 
his staff for their hard work on reforming the U.S. Department of 
Veterans Affairs Native American Direction Loan program. At the request 
of Senator Rounds and the Senate Veteran Affairs Committee, the 
Government Accounting Office (GAO) is conducting a comprehensive review 
of the barriers to homeownership for Native American veterans. We 
anticipate that GAO will release its findings this spring, and we are 
looking forward to assisting any legislative efforts that will follow.
Feedback on S. 3381
    Now, I'd like to talk about S. 3381. We appreciate the emphasis 
this bill places on designing and implementing the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs' (BIA's) processes in a way that is compatible with private 
mortgage industry practices. Native people should be able to enter 
mortgage transactions just as any other citizen in this country. 
Unfortunately, that is not always the case due to delays and 
inconsistencies with the BIA's processes. As our trustee, the BIA has a 
fiduciary duty to protect tribal land and prevent it from leaving its 
trust status. However, this trust responsibility should not impede 
tribal members' ability to utilize their property rights to achieve 
their dreams of homeownership.
    S. 3381 will go a long way to build on the momentum we are seeing 
across Indian Country to increase the homeownership rates of Native 
families. Overall, we applaud the legislation for prioritizing the 
mortgage processes within the BIA and setting a tone of accountability. 
The following provisions have the potential to offer some great 
solutions:

        1. Review and Processing Timeframes. The bill establishes 
        timelines for review and processing guidelines for leasehold 
        mortgages, right-of-way documents, land mortgages, and title 
        status reports (TSRs). It also mandates an annual report to 
        Congress about the volume of mortgage package documents and 
        whether the applicable timeframes were met. We appreciate the 
        inclusion of this congressional oversight and hope that it is 
        adequate to ensure compliance with these statutory 
        requirements. To date, the BIA's administrative Mortgage 
        Handbook (52 IAM 4-H) issued in 2019 sets out similar 
        timeframes, which have not been adhered to in many cases. We 
        recommend that the Congressional oversight committees monitor 
        compliance closely and consider more stringent enforcement 
        mechanisms, as appropriate.

        2. TAAMs Terminals. We strongly support the provision that 
        requires BIA to give tribes and the federal agencies ``read 
        only'' access to Trust Asset and Accounting Management System 
        (TAAMS) terminals. It is critical for the BIA to take the steps 
        necessary to provide access to TAAMs terminals as expeditiously 
        as possible to ensure that mortgage processes are not 
        unnecessarily stalled. We were encouraged to hear the remarks 
        of Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs Bryan Todd Newland 
        during his confirmation hearing last summer. He committed to 
        this Committee, in response to questions from Senator Daines, 
        to make TAAMs terminals available as quickly as possible, 
        including to tribes who have adopted their own leasing 
        processes under the Helping Expedite and Advance Responsible 
        Tribal Home Ownership Act of 2012 (HEARTH Act).

        3. 1st Certified Title Status Report. Another key element we 
        are pleased to see is the requirement for the 1st certified TSR 
        to be issued within 14 days. Off reservation, county assessors' 
        records allow one to see title records within minutes, and 
        title policies are issued by title companies for underwriting 
        purposes usually within two to four weeks. Receiving comparable 
        documents from the BIA has varied widely by BIA Region from 30 
        days to 365 days or more in many cases. Lenders require 
        certified Title Status Reports to document title for 
        underwriting purposes. These reports are submitted to loan 
        underwriters along with the loan application and traditional 
        underwriting information. Requiring a 14-day timeline for 
        obtaining the 1st certified TSR moves the process one step 
        closer to the timing of the industry experiences on fee simple 
        land for home loan transactions.

        4. GAO Study. We strongly support the bill's mandate for a GAO 
        study about the need and cost for digitization of mortgage 
        related documents. The BIA must modernize and enter today's 
        world of technology so that it can provide the appropriate 
        level of service necessary to support homeownership 
        transactions for Native families. We urge Congress to 
        appropriate the funds necessary to implement the findings of 
        the GAO study as quickly as possible.

        5. Realty Ombudsman. Often, homebuyers on trust land feel like 
        their mortgage packages fall into a ``black hole'' somewhere 
        within the depths of the BIA. Therefore, we strongly support 
        the establishment of a Realty Ombudsman to ensure compliance 
        with timeframes and to receive inquiries from tribal citizens, 
        tribes, lenders, and tribal and federal agencies. It will be 
        important, however, for this position to have the authority to 
        take action where appropriate. For example, we would like to 
        see the Ombudsman have the authority to utilize automatic 
        waivers and assumed approval if timelines for reviewing 
        mortgage packages are not being met.

    In conclusion, the South Dakota Native Homeownership Coalition once 
again commends Senator Thune and his staff for introducing S. 3381, and 
we would like to offer one additional suggestion. As Congress works 
towards enactment of this legislation, we encourage the Committee to 
create an advisory group to work with the Bureau of Indian Affairs to 
identify antiquated leasing regulations that are no longer needed due 
to the evolution of tribal governments and the sophistication of tribal 
borrowers. We hope that the Committee will consider amendments to 
authorize the creation of such an effort.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify. We look forward to 
continuing to work with our South Dakota Senators, this Committee, and 
all of Congress to improve homeownership opportunities for Native 
people wherever they may reside.
    I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

    The Chairman. Thank you very much, Ms. Vogel.
    Ms. Isom-Clause, what is going on here? Why does it take up 
to a year to do something that ought to take some number of 
weeks, maybe a month?
    Ms. Isom-Clause. Thank you for the question, Chairman 
Schatz. Just to begin to answer, I want to recognize that, as 
you know, homeownership on tribal lands contributes to the 
well-being of tribal families as well as builds economies in 
tribal communities. Assisting in homeownership is one of our 
most important purposes in our mortgage approvals.
    We agree that this process should be easy for homeowners on 
tribal lands, and we want to----
    The Chairman. Okay, so what is going on?
    Ms. Isom-Clause. It is hard to answer your question 
specifically, Chairman. I think there are a lot of complexities 
dealing with the trust land, dealing with the many partners 
involved in this.
    The Chairman. Let's pretend it is just the two of us and we 
are having a cup of coffee. Now, what is the deal? Is it that 
there is a thicket of regulations that everybody feels they 
have to follow? Is it training? Is it organizational culture? 
Is it a lack of staff? What is the deal here?
    Look, we are going to try to pass this bill. And we will 
take your TA on the technical question of the TAAMS system. I 
get all of that. But I am a little worried that we are going to 
pass this bill and we are going to sort of congratulate 
ourselves, we got the ombudsman and we got new shot clocks. And 
we are going to be back here in five years with no improvement 
to the actual operation of the generation of the documents that 
people need to get a mortgage.
    So what do we do? What is the problem?
    Ms. Isom-Clause. Thank you, Chairman. I apologize for not 
being more specific in the answer. We are looking at 
comprehensive reform, is kind of the best way I can think of 
it. We are not looking at this just in one silo of mortgage. We 
are looking at our entire realty programs, how we can make this 
more efficient overall.
    We have tracking and trainings that we are implementing 
with the mortgage approval processes specifically. That has 
been a several years-long process. We are working on a new 
inquiry portal, which allows for easier tracking, monitoring 
and reporting that we expect to roll out in the next six months 
that may be of assistance as well.
    I think there may be kind of multiple ways we can attack 
this problem. The department is committed to working with you 
on that if there are ways to improve that further in the bill.
    The Chairman. Well, but you have to execute the laws, 
right? Under the Constitution, you have to execute. I am still 
not satisfied that I know what your theory of the case is. If 
you don't' know what your theory of the case is because it is a 
relatively new Administration and you want to do some analysis 
and get back to us, I will accept that.
    But I would like, a shot clock and better visibility and 
just sort of where your permit is or is not in the process. 
That is all fine. But the foundational problem is, when you are 
trying to generate a mortgage, you are in a hurry. If this is 
the rate-limiting factor, and rates right now are going up. So 
I am sure people are a little bit antsy while they sit there.
    So let's just presume that this bill were already enacted. 
So we have an ombudsman. We have a statute that now matches the 
existing, I don't know if it is a rule or whatever, but it is 
something that you are already trying to abide by, but not 
meeting the mark. And then congratulations, now, person who 
needs a mortgage, you get to know exactly where your thing is 
in terms of its lateness, but it is not any less late.
    I am not satisfied with your answer. I would rather you 
say, we don't have an answer, and we are going to get back to 
the Committee than just tell me that homeownership is 
important, because we all stipulate to that. But you have to 
execute on this. I am not satisfied that you have a plan.
    Ms. Isom-Clause. Chairman Schatz, we will return to you 
with a more specific plan on that. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Vice Chair Murkowski.
    Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was hoping 
you would get an answer so that I wouldn't have to ask my 
question.
    But let me reframe it just a little bit differently in 
context with this Indian Affairs mortgage handbook. It was 
August of last year in the Wall Street Journal, they described 
the mortgage process on Indian lands as a ``byzantine 
process.'' They went on to describe the approvals, the 
applications that a potential homeowner on tribal lands has to 
go through. Pretty torturous, actually.
    Then the department came before, well, actually the 
department came before this Committee in October of 2019, so 
prior to that article, committed to improving the process on 
the tribal lands. The Committee was provided with testimony 
that BIA was making improvements to expedite the process via 
updates to the mortgage handbook.
    So here we are, two years after the department's assurances 
to the Committee. We see the articles, obviously in the Wall 
Street Journal, saying it doesn't look like there has been much 
action here with regard to what was raised before the 
Committee.
    Specific to where we were the last time there was an update 
before this Committee on where the department is on 
implementing the reforms to the Indian Affairs mortgage 
handbook, have you done that level of detail? Have those 
reforms been implemented per your own handbook?
    Ms. Isom-Clause. Thank you for the question, Vice Chair 
Murkowski. Yes, I believe we have implemented the reforms to 
our handbook. That is completed, to my knowledge.
    Senator Murkowski. So, and not having the handbook to 
reference, as the Chairman has noted, I am assuming that the 
reason we put the reforms in the handbook was to actually get 
to the root of the problem, which is, you have a byzantine 
process that doesn't allow for the potential homeowners to 
receive any kind of assurance that this process is going to be 
efficient in any way.
    So you say that you have implemented the reforms. I think 
what would be helpful for us is for you to detail for the 
Committee exactly what reforms have been addressed in 
compliance with that handbook. So we will look forward to that.
    You have also noted in your testimony that Interior cites a 
privacy concern with tribes and some of the other Federal 
agencies accessing the TAAMS data. But in 2019, the department 
testified that the handbook update would allow the tribes and 
HUD and anybody to get the data without having to actually get 
into the system and go through the background checks and the IT 
training that is required. So the legislation authorizes this 
access.
    The simple question is, why is the department raising 
concerns with a policy that you seem to believe is needed, at 
least according to what we heard from the department last time 
they came before the Committee on this?
    Ms. Isom-Clause. Thank you for the question, Vice Chairman 
Murkowski. I believe that that is referring to the loan inquiry 
portals, so it provides access to the information relevant to 
that tribe or person inquiring without providing broader access 
to other information that might be personally identifiable from 
other tribes or other individuals.
    So our testimony is specific to Privacy Act concerns 
overall in the entire TAAMS system. But we do----
    Senator Murkowski. You said that there was a read-only 
policy for certain departments. So it is not system-wide?
    Ms. Isom-Clause. Right. Well, there was the departments 
that have loan programs, those were the ones that I mentioned.
    But yes, I mean, we just have to follow the requirements. 
You have a background check, and IT security training, and once 
those are completed, if a tribe has a 638 contract or compact, 
they can have the access they need for TAAMS, because they have 
taken over that realty function for themselves.
    Senator Murkowski. Mr. Chairman, this is really kind of 
important here. We have, certainly you and I have prioritized, 
and I think this Committee has prioritized housing for all 
kinds of good reasons. It is concerning to me that to hear that 
as we have prepared for this hearing, and as the department has 
prepared for this hearing, there are no real answers here about 
how we are going to have a better process. We might be able to 
move legislation, hopefully the NAHASDA is going to go through, 
but it seems to me that we need to have a little bit better 
clarity as to the compliance within the department and the 
agencies.
    The Chairman. I was going to ask a quick question of Ms. 
Isom-Clause. The concerns you have, could they be, do they need 
to be fleshed out in statutory law? Or can we just give you the 
authority? And obviously, we don't expect that a rank-and-file 
tribal member from California can access someone else's 
mortgage information in Minnesota or Hawaii. Nobody thinks that 
is good public policy.
    So I am happy to receive TA, but I also wonder whether this 
belongs in statute or just in implementation. So I will leave 
you with that question, because I do think there are legitimate 
concerns that you are articulating. I am just not sure that we 
are best equipped to figure out and be so proscriptive, 
especially as the system is hopefully about to be changed, 
right? We hope that you will clear out this thicket that 
everybody has to go through so that you probably need resources 
to execute. But you also just need a simpler process.
    So I would hate to tie Federal statute to a process that is 
about to change. I want to build in enough flexibility so that 
if you fix this, then there is not a statute that doesn't hook 
up with the rules. Let's work this through.
    But I don't think anybody on this Committee or any of the 
authors of this bill are suggesting that everybody should get 
access to the whole data base. It is really more of an 
accountability measure so that we can kind of figure out where 
we are. If you can take that for the record.
    Senator Smith is next, followed by Senator Rounds.

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

    Senator Smith. Thanks, Chair Schatz, and Vice Chair 
Murkowski.
    First I just want to thank you for your work on 
reauthorizing NAHASDA. Last summer, Senator Rounds and I 
actually held a subcommittee hearing of the Banking and Housing 
Committee on housing challenges in tribal nations. 
Reauthorizing and strengthening NAHASDA was one of the top 
issues that we heard about.
    Ms. Vogel was one of the members of the panel for that 
discussion. I am looking forward to coming to you in a minute 
with a question. It is nice to see you again.
    I just want to associate myself with the questions and the 
pushing that both Vice Chair Murkowski and Chair Schatz are 
doing on this question of how we get better results from the 
department. Having worked on the Executive Branch side as well 
as now on the Legislative Branch side, I know that we hear on 
the Legislative side might feel great about passing laws that 
ask the department to do things quicker. But it doesn't get to 
the core question of why things aren't happening quicker now. 
That is the tenor of the questions that I think Senator 
Murkowski and Senator Schatz were asking on behalf of all of 
us.
    So let us, as a cosponsor of the legislation, let us be 
your ally in trying to figure this out and making it work. 
Also, accountability for making sure that this isn't just about 
passing a law, this is about making sure that we actually get 
better results for Native people who are trying to figure out 
how to address the deep inequities around homeownership that we 
see on tribal land.
    Ms. Vogel, it is nice to see you again, as I said. I want 
to go to this question and get your perspective on this 
question on the legislation that I am working on with Senator 
Thune and Senator Rounds and Senator Tester. We know that we 
have this long timeline. We know that this has impacts on 
people's ability to get mortgages, and it also has impacts on 
lenders being willing to engage to make mortgages on tribal 
land.
    Can you just tell us a little bit about how improving these 
processing times, making, which our Tribal Trust Land 
Homeownership Act would do, can you just give us a sense of 
what difference this would make, how this is going to help us 
to address the underlying challenge of homeownership on tribal 
lands?
    Ms. Vogel. Thank you, Senator Smith, for that question. One 
of the things that we always are looking for is to be able to 
provide our tribal members with opportunity, more than one 
lender to choose from, so that they have a menu. One of the 
things that we have found is that in earlier years, it used to 
be that finding a lender willing to make mortgages on trust 
land was the challenge. It still is.
    But that is starting to change with the movement 
spearheaded by the Native CDFIs, the tribally owned banks, and 
national lenders like First Tribal Lending.
    One of the things that this bill will do for lenders is the 
timelines identified in the legislation provide the lending 
industry with assurances and dependability. Hopefully these 
assurances will bring back more lenders into the market. This 
is one of the reasons we lost some lenders from the HUD 184 
loan guarantee program.
    So reform is necessary. We know that processing the 
documents is going to make a huge difference in a time 
sensitive environment. Thank you.
    Senator Smith. Thank you very much. Could I stay with you, 
in the little bit of time I have left, I would love to hear 
your on the ground practical take on why it matters to do the 
NAHASDA reauthorization.
    Ms. Vogel. Thank you for that question. Of course, I was 
very excited to see the vote of the Committee earlier. Thank 
you for that support.
    Housing authorities, TDHEs, are really becoming 
sophisticated. We are learning how to leverage, we are creating 
a balance between rental and homeownership opportunities. So 
being able to move forward is really important. The changes in 
NAHASDA are really going to help us. They are going to open new 
doors of opportunity. They are going to create opportunities 
for new partnerships.
    So on the ground, as a housing practitioner, I see many 
opportunities to use the new NAHASDA changes to be able to 
promote housing development in our reservation. Thank you.
    Senator Smith. Thank you so much, Ms. Vogel. And thank you 
again, Chair Schatz. I yield back.
    The Chairman. Senator Rounds.
    Senator Rounds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I am going to go right back to Ms. Vogel for just a moment. 
I would love to have her share with the Committee the challenge 
with what happens when we try to actually get title or 
permission to build a home on a reservation, what happens with 
tribal trust. I think that is one of the major challenges we 
have, is how do you have the expertise? Where does the 
expertise come from?
    Ms. Vogel, could you just briefly share the process that 
you go through, who you talk to, and what really happens when 
you ask for the information to provide a title or an 
authorization, so that a person wanting a home can actually go 
to a lender?
    Ms. Vogel. Thank you for that question, Senator Rounds. I 
am sure it is going to vary from reservation to reservation. 
But here on Cheyenne River, when our borrower has reached that 
point that they have decided on a piece of land, either they 
own it or it is going to be a home site from the tribe, and 
they receive their approval, then the next step is getting the 
TSR. That is making sure, and we start at our agency office.
    Senator Rounds. What is a TSR?
    Ms. Vogel. It is a document that is really an important 
document. It is the certified title status report. That 
particular document is a requirement for anyone's mortgage loan 
application. It shows that the borrower has authorization to 
the land that they want to build their home on.
    Senator Rounds. Who does that document come from?
    Ms. Vogel. That comes from the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
    Senator Rounds. Is that part of the challenge we have right 
now, getting that authorization?
    Ms. Vogel. Yes. There is some discussion around should 
there be approval granted to the agency superintendent, so that 
we don't have to go up to the area office, and at time maybe 
even the headquarters.
    So we are really looking forward to being able to have 
discussions with the Bureau as they reform to really look at 
what is working and what isn't working.
    Senator Rounds. How long does it take to get that 
authorization now? If you ask for it, or they ask for it as 
part of the process, how long does it take before you get a 
response back before you have to go follow up?
    Ms. Vogel. If we are lucky, we can get it back in a month. 
That is if we stay right on top of it. We try to work very hard 
with our agency staff. But there have been times that it has 
taken six months, and it has taken longer. That really stalls 
out the mortgage loan process for that borrower. That is really 
unfair to them. Because up to that point, they have done 
everything that they needed to do to be able to move their 
mortgage loan application to the lender in its final form.
    Senator Rounds. How often does that happen, to have a delay 
like that?
    Ms. Vogel. Of six months or more?
    Senator Rounds. More than 60 days.
    Ms. Vogel. It is, well, unfortunately the land process does 
take too long in a time sensitive environment. I would say that 
almost 50 percent of our delays in the mortgage loan process 
relate back to the timely processing and receiving appropriate 
lease-mortgage documents regarding the land assignments.
    Senator Rounds. And that basically shuts down the process 
for that new home purchaser, doesn't it?
    Ms. Vogel. Yes, it does. If they are in the final stages of 
presenting their package to their lender, and they don't have 
that required document, they don't go any further.
    Senator Rounds. I was just thinking back, it seems to me 
that we have had conversations, it is not just loans through a 
commercial entity. What about another Federal agency such as 
the VA? I believe that you and I have had discussions about the 
challenges of getting a VA loan. Do you recall having a 
discussion with me about the success of the Minneapolis region 
with regard to the number of VA loans that were successfully 
provided to Native Americans in terms of the upper Midwest?
    Ms. Vogel. Yes, I do remember that conversation.
    Senator Rounds. Would you share that story with us, please? 
Would you please share that story?
    Ms. Vogel. Our Native veterans definitely believed that a 
home loan was something that would be an easy process for them, 
that they knew that they had that opportunity to get the Native 
American Direct Loan Program. When they started on their own, 
it was not successful. We did not have veterans being able to 
navigate that process.
    As a result, we had frustrated veterans that would come to 
us and say, I don't want to try that, because it takes too 
long. I don't understand it, they keep changing loan officers. 
So the success of the Native American Direct Loan Program did 
not get off to a good start. For a number of years, there were 
not loans being closed for Native American veterans.
    So the Coalition started to advocate and see, what are the 
problems. Of course, there were a host of problems. Now we have 
learned, we, the TDHEs, housing practitioners, have learned the 
process. So we have to be the advocates to be able to do the 
loan packaging, to be able to walk them through the loan 
process. Even then, right now we are working with one of our 
tribal members that is, in fact he is the commander of our 
American Legion here. We have been going on over a year trying 
to close his loan and get the right documents through the St. 
Paul office.
    So it continues to be a frustrating process. I am hoping 
that with your leadership that we will have some changes coming 
soon.
    Senator Rounds. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Chairman, I apologize for going on on this thing. The 
point I would like to make is, it is not just IHS that is 
impacted by this, but it is because we can't get these trust 
documents in an appropriate fashion. It impacts our veterans' 
ability to get them as well. In fact, I believe this particular 
St. Paul office for the VA actually won an award for the most 
number of VA home mortgages issued in, I believe, 2018, in the 
entire Nation, they had five. That tells us basically what the 
challenge is here.
    So I want to thank Ms. Vogel, because she has been a 
champion on this. It really is time to get to the bottom of it.
    The Chairman. Before I turn it over to Vice Chair Murkowski 
for her second round of questions, I want to suggest that some 
of the authors of this bill may want to get together. A 
legislative strategy I think is appropriate. But there may be 
room for a workshop, a couple of actual working meetings, and 
doing real oversight and working with the Administration to get 
to the bottom of this. I am not satisfied that we can enshrine 
in statute what needs to be done. A lot of what needs to be 
done is strategies, execution. We have to get to the execution 
piece of this.
    Vice Chair Murkowski.
    Senator Murkowski. I do think there is recognition that 
something has to be done. What we are dealing with is simply 
not tenable.
    I want to ask a quick question. This is to our witnesses 
that have testified with regard to the Merkley bills, the 
Siletz and Grand Ronde. This is to Chairman Kennedy and 
Chairman Pigsley. Both of your tribes have indicated that your 
work relationship with the State of Oregon has dramatically 
improved. You are now implementing some conservation programs 
and other work to help fulfill the tribes' subsistence needs.
    This may be a general question, but I think it helps us on 
the Committee. If you can share with us what you expect a new 
agreement with the State to look like if you are successful in 
being able to negotiate and replace the existing agreements. 
Can you tell us whether or not co-management will be a part of 
that new agreement? Explain where you think you might be there.
    Ms. Pigsley. I will go ahead, Cheryle, if that is okay with 
you.
    Senator Murkowski. Certainly, go ahead.
    Ms. Pigsley. We have worked extensively with ODFW, and we 
are currently negotiating what our new relationship will look 
like. We do co-manage right now. It gives us a greater 
flexibility and ability to provide services to our membership, 
but also to work with the State. We meet with them annually, 
anyway.
    So I believe it is a very good relationship and very 
productive for us.
    Senator Murkowski. Very good, thank you.
    Ms. Kennedy. Thank you for the question. The escrow 
management is part of the way that we view moving forward, as 
stated. We do have a good working relationship with the State, 
and the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Department. We have been able 
to work through different issues, given the consent decree 
being there.
    We meet, as Chair Pigsley stated, regularly with the State. 
We have dialogue with the governor once a month. We talk with 
the Department of Fish and Wildlife probably more regularly 
than that.
    In Oregon, there is the Legislative Commission on Indian 
Services that all of the tribes of Oregon participate in. That 
gives us more opportunity to talk with the State of Oregon on 
issues like this.
    So yes, the relationship is good. As far as if you are 
asking, what is the final document going to look like, that is 
not in place. This will give us the opportunity to explore all 
of those issues before us. We are thankful that you are able to 
hear us today, and hopefully support the endeavors of our two 
tribes.
    Senator Murkowski. Thank you both.
    Mr. Chairman, I know that we have a couple of votes that 
are beginning. I want to thank the witnesses. I also want to 
recognize the Vice Chairman here. We haven't peppered you with 
questions, but know that we also appreciate your being here on 
behalf of the Agua Caliente and speaking to Senator Padilla's 
bill as well.
    Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you for being here in person, and I 
assure you, not getting peppered with questions is a good 
thing, not a bad thing. Just ask Ms. Isom-Clause.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. If there are no more questions for our 
witnesses, members may also submit follow-up written questions 
for the record. The hearing record will be open for two weeks. 
I want to thank all of the witnesses for their time and their 
testimony.
    This hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 3:49 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                            A P P E N D I X

 Prepared Statement of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian 
                              Reservation
    Dear Honorable Chair Schatz and members of the Committee:
    On behalf of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian 
Reservation (CTUIR), we write to express our positions on S. 3123 and 
S. 3126 regarding the treatment of hunting and fishing activities of 
the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians (Siletz) and the Confederated 
Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon (Grand Ronde). We 
respectfully request that this letter be included in the record for the 
February 16, 2022 hearing on these bills, and considered by the 
Committee.
    The recently introduced S. 3123 (Siletz) and S. 3126 (Grand Ronde) 
would amend those tribes' restoration and/or reservation acts to allow 
them to seek new agreements with the State of Oregon regarding their 
tribal hunting and fishing activities, on- and off-reservation. While 
we were not consulted by congressional offices prior to introduction of 
these bills, we have had extensive conversations with Siletz regarding 
its legislation and its intentions if enacted.
    Siletz has been exceptionally transparent with us in the 
development of its draft federal legislation, and the elements of the 
co-management agreement with Oregon that it seeks as a replacement for 
its current Consent Decree. Based on council-to-council and staff-level 
conversations with Siletz, we reached an intertribal agreement for 
protections of our interests at Willamette Falls. We also were provided 
with the draft replacement agreement that Siletz would seek with the 
State of Oregon, along with an opportunity to provide comments that 
were incorporated by Siletz. Further, Siletz expressed its support for 
our history and continued use of Willamette Falls. Therefore, we 
support S. 3123 and Siletz's process for seeking improved hunting and 
fishing access for its tribal members in Oregon.
    The same cannot be said for Grand Ronde's approach. CTUIR has had 
one government-to-government meeting with Grand Ronde on this subject 
in which neither draft legislation nor a draft replacement agreement 
was shared. When Grande Ronde finally did share a very rough draft 
replacement agreement, we raised significant concerns about that 
agreement. Grand Ronde refused to acknowledge our Tribe's history and 
continued use of Willamette Falls as usual and accustomed fishing areas 
under our Treaties, or under any other basis. Indeed, Grand Ronde 
explicitly told the CTUIR that no assurances could be made with respect 
to Willamette Falls. Further, Grand Ronde suggested that CTUIR, a 
Treaty Tribe with reserved federal rights, should follow the process 
that Grand Ronde used for fishing at Willamette Falls and put itself 
under the jurisdiction of the State of Oregon. We also understand no 
that formal or substantive meetings have taken place between other 
concerned tribes and Grand Ronde on this matter.
    How the Siletz and Grand Ronde replacement agreements made possible 
by S.3123 and S. 3126 involve the Willamette Falls area is of great 
concern. The Willamette River is a tributary of the Columbia River. The 
CTUIR, along with its sister Columbia River Treaty Tribes, have long 
claimed Willamette Falls as a usual and accustomed fishing area 
reserved by our 1855 treaties, and we continue to use the Falls 
annually for subsistence and ceremonial harvest. We have not claimed 
exclusive fishing or gathering rights at Willamette Falls relative to 
other tribes. Our conversations with the Siletz Tribe have given us 
confidence that it has not and will not use any replacement agreement 
with the State of Oregon to challenge or interfere in any way with our 
claims or our annual harvest activities at Willamette Falls. 
Unfortunately, the Grande Ronde Tribe has failed to provide similar 
assurances. Instead, the Grand Ronde Tribe promotes a false narrative 
of historic control of tribal fisheries at Willamette Falls, along with 
a claim of primacy or exclusive rights for fishing at Willamette Falls.
    To make matters worse, Grand Ronde has aggressively engaged in 
adversarial proceedings to exclude our tribes from the Willamette Falls 
area. These actions include, but are not limi ted to:

  Grand Ronde's production of multiple ``reports,'' compiled by 
        a non-Indian historian, that falsely discredit our tribes' 
        history and use of Willamette Falls, and refer to our own 
        history, as told by anthropologists on our Cultural Resources 
        Program staff, as ``intellectually dishonest'';

  Grand Ronde's repeated attempts to exclude other tribes from 
        the historical narrative and implementation of a potential 
        National Heritage Area at Willamette Falls;

  Grand Ronde's refusal to allow the Willamette Falls Legacy 
        Project to proceed if other tribes with rights and interests at 
        the Falls are involved. (The Legacy Project is a state-county-
        municipal project that would redevelop former industrial areas 
        around the Falls into a riverwalk and opportunities to 
        reconnect people to the magnificence of the Falls, largely 
        funded by state and private contributions.)

    These exclusionary actions give us significant concern for how 
Grand Ronde might use new congressional authority as further 
justification to exclude CTUIR or other treaty tribes from accessing 
Willamette Falls, as well as other ``usual and accustomed'' areas 
protected by our treaties. As mentioned above, the CTUIR is a Treaty 
Tribe with explicitly reserved fishing, hunting and gathering rights in 
our Treaty of 1855. 12 Stat. 945, Art. I. The Grand Ronde is a restored 
tribe, and as such, do not possess treaty rights. Further, the treaties 
the Grand Ronde does claim, even if they were in effect, did not 
reserve off-reservation rights. (Other tribes also claim the same 
treaties.) While this legislation is no doubt well-intended, we are 
regrettably unable to provide our support to S. 3126, and actively 
oppose S. 3126, until such time as Grand Ronde meets directly with 
CTUIR and provides adequate assurance of protections for our treaty 
rights at Willamette Falls and its surrounding area.
    Please contact us if you have any questions or if we can provide 
any further information.
                                 ______
                                 
 Prepared Statement of the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama 
                                 Nation
    Chairman Schatz, Vice Chairwoman Murkowski, and Honorable Members 
of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, thank you for considering 
our views on the referenced bills.
    We have the greatest respect for the Senators and House Members who 
have introduced these, and the House companion bills, but we strongly 
oppose their enactment unless they are amended to be consistent with 
both history and clear black letter law.
    While we are concerned about precedents that could be established 
through the enactment of S. 3123, affecting the Confederated Tribes of 
Siletz Indians, and request clarifying provisions be added to it, we 
wish to focus this statement on S. 3126, legislation amending the Grand 
Ronde Reservation Act of 1988.
    Through an unrelenting public relations initiative, the 
Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde (CTGR) have perpetuated an amazing 
degree of historical revisionism. Simply put, their claims of pre-
existing treaty related hunting and fishing rights never existed and no 
amount of wishful thinking or rewriting of more recent history can make 
it so.
    Some key facts must be in evidence here:

        1) The CTGR have never been adjudged to be the successors in 
        interest to any ratified treaty.

        2) The treaties they claim to be successors to contained no 
        off-reservation hunting or fishing rights.

    How then can the Congress now act, or authorize the State of Oregon 
to act, to restore rights if those rights never existed? The Congress 
should not ignore over a century of federal law determining how Indian 
fishing rights affirmed by treaties have been established. Doing so has 
the potential for serious damage to treaty-reserved rights we retain 
and to the treaty-reserved rights retained by a number of tribes 
throughout various regions of the country, not the least being the 
Pacific Northwest.
    The Treaties signed by the Yakama Nation, the Confederated Tribes 
of Warm Springs, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian 
Reservation, and the Nez Perce Tribe--as well as by tribes in the Puget 
Sound, the Confederated Salish and Kootenai of Montana and elsewhere--
contained provisions establishing, or more precisely affirming, 
explicit reserved hunting, fishing and gathering rights. Our Treaty and 
others also confirmed ``the right of taking fish at all usual and 
accustomed places in common with the citizens of the Territory.'' The 
same is not true for the CTGR.
    For the past century, the Yakama Nation has been at the forefront 
defending our rights to fish off reservation at usual and accustomed 
places, in the Columbia River Basin. Federal and state courts have 
repeatedly ruled that we, as a treaty fishing tribe, have rights to 
fish off reservation in a manner regulated by our tribal government. In 
the first case--the famous Winans decision of 1905 (198 US 371)--the US 
Supreme Court examined our Treaty of 1855 and established the treaty 
fishing reserved rights doctrine.
    In 1919, in the case of Seufert Brothers Co. v. United States, 249 
U.S. 194, the US Supreme Court ruled that the Yakama Treaty allowed 
tribal members to fish on the Oregon side of the Columbia and beyond 
the area of lands ceded in our Treaty.
    In 1942, in the case of Tulee v. Washington, 315 U.S. 681, the 
Supreme Court held that Yakama Tribal member Sampson Tulee did not need 
a state fishing license due to the provisions in our Treaty of 1855.
    In 1967, in State v James, 72 Wn.2d 746, 435 P.2d 521, the 
Washington State Supreme Court affirmed a ruling of the Superior Court 
for Skamania County that Yakama tribal members have the right to fish 
below Bonneville Dam. That right was further affirmed in a MOA between 
the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Yakama 
Nation in 2007.
    In 1968, fourteen Yakama tribal members filed suit in a case known 
as Sohappy v. Smith, 302 F. Supp. 899 which challenged Oregon's 
attempts to regulate off-reservation fishing against members of the 
Yakama Nation. That case was joined by the Umatilla, Warm Springs, Nez 
Perce and the Yakama tribes and eventually combined with the 
significant and precedential US. v. Oregon decision (302 F. Supp. 899), 
which affirmed that the governments of the Treaty Tribes, and not the 
states or Washington or Oregon, had the authority to regulate Indian 
fishermen fishing pursuant to the respective treaties of those tribes.
    In 1980, Congress passed the Northwest Power Act which included 
over 20 amendments drafted and lobbied for by the Yakama Nation 
mandating that power production and fisheries be managed as coequal 
interests and directing BPA to protect salmon through the establishment 
of a new Fish and Wildlife Program.
    There are many other Yakama initiated lawsuits which we won't 
discuss in detail, including annual suits in the early 1980s against 
the Secretary of Commerce requiring the Pacific Ocean commercial fleet 
to be managed in such a fashion to ensure reasonable quantities of fish 
returned to the Columbia River.
    The basis of Vaka ma Nation's legal fights has always been the 
rights reserved by the Vaka ma Treaty, which have never been 
extinguished and hold true today just as they did when our Treaty was 
signed in 1855. The CTGR does not share this history. Any treaties they 
claim were extinguished, as was their status as tribe when they were 
terminated in 1954. Despite the restoration of the CTGR's status as a 
tribe in the 1980s, no court has ever ruled that the CTGR are the 
successors in interest to any ratified treaty and there are various 
tribes in western Oregon, including the Siletz, Coos and Lower Umpqua 
Tribes of Oregon who claim to be successors in interest to some of the 
same treaties claimed by the CTGR. As importantly, the treaties claimed 
by the CTGR simply do not contain any language reserving off-
reservation rights to hunt or fish and instead focus significantly on 
farming. For instance, Articles 2, 3 and 4 of the Willamette Valley 
Treaty reference funds for stock, agricultural implements, seeds, 
fencing, the employment of a representative for farming operations and 
a survey of lands that can be established as farming lots; the Treaty 
with the Umpqua and Kalapuya references opening farms, fencing, 
breaking land, providing stock and seeds and agricultural instructors. 
These treaties claimed by the CTGR make no mention of fishing, not to 
mention off-reservation fishing in usual and accustomed areas.
    So, the question is what exactly does CTGR need to renegotiate with 
Oregon? The State already allows the CTGR to hunt and fish both on and 
off-reservation as part of the State harvest share. The members of the 
Indian Affairs Committee should closely examine the testimony submitted 
by the Umatilla Tribe of Oregon on this legislation. The Umatilla 
chronicle the aggressive tactics of the CTGR in their attempts to 
exclude the Yakama Nation, the Umatilla, and Warm Springs Tribes from 
a) Willamette Falls in general, b) from the future National Heritage 
Area at the Falls, and c) from the Willamette Falls Legacy Project, 
despite there being ample evidence of those tribes historical fishing 
of lamprey and other fish at Willamette Falls consistent with the 
provisions of their respective treaties. The CTGR have, remarkably, 
suggested that none of the Columbia River Tribes have authority to fish 
in the lower Columbia as the entirety of it is in within the claimed 
ceded lands of the CTGR, despite more than a century of litigation and 
precedential decisions holding otherwise. Sadly, all of this is 
completely consistent with the CTGR's tactics when they spent millions 
of dollars in public relations campaigns to try and deny casinos and 
the opportunities for job creation to the Warm Springs Tribes of Oregon 
and Cowlitz Tribe of Washington State, as they are now doing again 
relative to the proposed Siletz casino in North Salem. The CTGR argued 
in favor of the Carcieri decision as a means of opposing the Cowlitz 
casino. As this committee knows, the Carcieri decision was so repugnant 
to Indian law and to tribes in general that the Congress rejected and 
reversed it.
    Senator Merkley's press release announcing the introduction of this 
legislation includes the following language, ``For more than 35 years, 
the Grand Ronde and the Siletz tribes of American Indians have been 
bound by legal agreements that strip them of the right to manage their 
own hunting and fishing seasons on tribal land (emphasis added). His 
press release also includes the following quote referenced to CTGR 
Chairwoman Cheryle Kennedy, ``Kennedy said she is hoping her tribes 
will be able to renegotiate their agreement with the state of Oregon so 
the tribal government can manage its own hunting and fishing seasons on 
about 12,000 acres that the tribe now owns (emphasis added). Chairman 
Schatz, Vice Chairwoman Murkowski, and Committee Members, if that is in 
fact what the Oregon Senators and the CTGR want, we have no problem 
with it to the extent contemplated actions are limited to existing 
reservation lands. But please read the language of S. 3126 and tell us 
where you see anything that would limit the authorized future agreement 
with Oregon to off-reservation tribal land or any private land that the 
CTGR now own? Subsection 2(b)(l) authorizes Oregon and the CTGR to 
enter into a new agreement ``relating to the hunting, fishing, trapping 
and animal gathering rights of the Confederated Tribes of the Grand 
Ronde Community.'' Subsection 2(b)(2) authorizes still further 
amendments to the initial agreement in 2(b)(l) whenever it might be 
mutually agreed to by Oregon and the CTGR. There is no reference to 
those agreements being limited to existing reservation land. Three 
years ago, the CTGR purchased the former Blue Heron Paper Mill in 
Willamette Falls, 75 miles east of the Grand Ronde Reservation. CTGR 
could well petition to have it placed in trust, and it would then be 
entirely consistent with how this tribe operates to suggest that they 
would push the powers that be in Salem to establish future fishing 
rights and even managerial authority over this land and portions of the 
Willamette River adjacent to it. Again, please read the Umatilla 
Tribe's testimony and the summary of the actions the CTGR have taken at 
Willamette Falls on page two above. These aggressive actions and 
attempts at excluding the Umatilla, Warm Spring and Yakama tribes from 
Willamette Falls are being undertaken now. Imagine the degree these 
efforts will expand if this bill passes, and you can be assured those 
efforts will be further buttressed by continued large scale campaign 
contributions by the CTGR in Salem.
    If the Indian Affairs Committee sees justification in this 
legislation, we make three requests for amendments to the bill. First, 
it should stipulate that the 1986 Consent Decree to ``Permanently 
Define [Grand Ronde] Tribal Hunting, Fishing, and Animal Gathering 
Rights'' can be amended only relative to their existing Grand Ronde 
reservation lands in Yamhill and Polk Counties. Second, that no future 
agreement could allow the extension of commercial fishing or co-
management of Columbia River fishing. And third, ensure there can be no 
limit on the exercise of existing treaty-reserved fishing rights by 
other federally recognized tribes in either the Columbia River or at 
Willamette Falls. If the CTGR do not agree to these changes, it should 
become obvious that they have misled folks and have intentions that are 
well beyond what they have claimed. We have read the savings clause in 
Section 2(d) and feel it needs to be extended further as suggested 
above.
    Finally, we urge the Committee to carefully examine the Judicial 
Review Subsection 2(c) of S. 3126. This provision seems to be giving 
congressional authority to CTGR to challenge the existing consent 
decree, which under federal case law in the 9th Circuit is considered a 
final judgment for purposes of res judicata and collateral estoppel. 
This bill is proposing the extraordinary step of allowing any party to 
the consent decree to be able to challenge the merits of its 
substantive provisions in federal court, with no issue or claim 
preclusion to prevent any future litigation or new court rulings on 
CTGR rights. We think members of the federal judiciary and attorneys 
everywhere would find this to be problematic.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Brian Schatz to 
                          Kathryn Isom-Clause
    Question 1. This Committee has heard that BIA's realty systems 
contribute to the lag in mortgage approvals for residences and 
businesses on Tribal lands. Please describe in detail the source of the 
delay and any internal reforms BIA has developed/is developing to 
address it.
    Answer. Several factors could cause delays in processing mortgage 
applications, as each application is unique. Delay can stem from 
incomplete applications or faulty paperwork included in the incoming 
application to the inability to gain consent from co-owners. For second 
mortgage applications, the delay often stems from the lack of 
satisfaction and release documents for former mortgages. However, the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) can provide information to the applicant 
to facilitate timely receipt of needed documentation.
    In cases where lenders provide BIA loans without approved 
mortgages, BIA Regional Offices need to perfect the mortgage to be 
approved. These cases still need to go through the review process and, 
if they legally cannot be approved, the cases may need to be marked as 
Incomplete and returned to the lender for mitigation. To address these 
delays, the BIA is working to ensure that lenders are fully aware of 
all BIA requirements. We recognize that we must continue to ramp up our 
education efforts to ensure lenders are comfortable working in Indian 
country. Lenders and Tribes have been unclear as to where the approval 
authority for leasehold mortgages is under the Helping Expedite and 
Advance Responsible Tribal Home Ownership Act of 2012 (HEARTH Act) 
lease. Under an approved Tribal HEARTH Act ordinance, which includes 
provisions for leasehold mortgages, the Tribe has the authority to 
approve leasehold mortgages. Thus, eliminating the need for Secretarial 
approval. Tribal approval can significantly decrease the time it takes 
to process a leasehold mortgage. To address these misunderstandings, 
BIA is working to educate HEARTH Act Tribes and lenders on the lease 
and leasehold mortgage approval process.
    The BIA is taking steps to expedite the processing of mortgage 
applications and issued policies and provided training to agency staff 
and Tribal contract or compact employees regarding BIA mortgage 
approval requirements and timelines. The BIA plans to conduct 
additional procedural and system trainings to ensure timeliness. 
Furthermore, the BIA is looking to implement a new mortgage system 
within the next six months that will aid in a more convenient 
application process, which we anticipate will lead to more timely 
approvals. The system will include enhanced quality control, 
monitoring, and reporting for BIA.

    Question 2. Would the addition of a realty ombudsman help expedite 
processing Tribal mortgage applications? What, if any, authority would 
the ombudsman have to ensure the Bureau is responsive or in compliance 
with the deadlines reflected in S. 3381?
    Answer. A realty ombudsman could help expedite the processing of 
Tribal mortgage applications. Specifically, a realty ombudsman could 
help Tribal contracted and compacted programs and lenders compile 
documents needed for complete mortgage applications.
    As currently drafted, S. 3381 creates a realty ombudsman who has a 
primary responsibility of ensuring deadlines related to the mortgage 
application process are met. That position, along with the already 
effective Indian Affairs Mortgage Handbook, 52 IAM 4-H, could assist 
the Bureau of Indian Affairs in the timely processing of mortgage 
applications.
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Ben Ray Lujan to 
                          Kathryn Isom-Clause
    Question 1. Ms. Isom-Clause, what is the average time the Bureau 
and the Division of Land Titles and Records take to finalize Title 
Status Reports and loan packages? What is the average time that each 
Bureau of Indian Affairs Regional Office takes to finalize Title Status 
Report and loan packages?
    Answer. Certified Title Status Reports (CTSRs) are normally 
completed within two business days of the request being submitted into 
the Trust Asset and Accounting Management System (TAAMS) TSR Request 
module. The BIA's Land Titles and Records Office (LTRO) does not have a 
role with incoming mortgage applications. However, once a finalized 
mortgage is scanned into TAAMS, LTRO will encode and record (apply to 
title) the document. An Agency must request the final CTSR through the 
TSR Request module and L TRO will certify that within two business days 
and send it to the Agency and/or lender.
    Pursuant to Title 25 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 
162 and the Indian Affairs Manual (1AM) at 52 1AM 4, there are 
regulatory timeframes for BIA approval of mortgages. The average time 
for BIA to approve a leasehold mortgage is 37 days and a land mortgage 
is 106 days.

    Question 2. Ms. Isom-Clause, what barriers currently exist to more 
expedient processing and certification of Title Status Reports and 
mortgages?
    Answer. Barriers to expedient processing of CTSRs and mortgages 
originate from both internal processes and external parties.
    BIA Region and Agency offices function as the office of record for 
mortgages. While the number varies from year to year, on average they 
process approximately 500 mortgages each year. Agency offices must scan 
the mortgage documents into TAAMS and submit the request(s) for a CTSR 
to trigger review and recordation. In the past two fiscal years, LTRO 
completed over 1,000 TSRs each year (1,225 in FY2l, and 1,096 in FY22. 
In FY22, completion date averages range from 5.3-7.6 days depending on 
ifwe use the create or assigned date. This does not consider the Agency 
Realty Office notifying or sending the CTSR to the lender, only the 
certification timeframe as reported through the module and a Qlik 
query. Understaffing due to difficulties in filling relevant positions 
contributes to delays.
    External barriers are also numerous. One of the larger barriers is 
lender understanding of the process and required documents. The lender/
applicant is responsible for assembling required documents to support 
the Bureau's approval of a mortgage. Lenders enter into mortgages with 
landowners that are not yet approved or recorded by the BIA. Some 
lenders expect a final CTSR for a transaction that had not yet been 
requested nor approved.
    Coordination of information is another barrier to more expedient 
processing. For example, lenders will send periodic and duplicative 
status requests for two to three hundred mortgages at a time. It is a 
time-consuming exercise for the BIA to repeatedly provide and validate 
lenders' data.
    In many instances, the BIA has provided TSRs back to the lender and 
the lender has not provided this information to entities such as the 
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). This 
requires the BIA to duplicate case review and provide the dates the TSR 
was provided to the lender. Lenders also delay the process by 
requesting certain information to be on TSR's as there is no standard 
TSR format.
    The BIA is committed to supporting Tribes through lender education 
efforts, and is striving to increase these efforts to ensure lenders 
are aware of the process, timeline, and information required.

    Question 3. Ms. Isom-Clause, what actions has the Bureau taken to 
expedite Title Status Reports and processing of mortgage-related 
documents? What is the status of these actions?
    Answer. The Bureau has developed the following guidance and tools 
to enhance mortgage application processing:

   In May 2018, the BIA issued the TAAMS Title Status Report 
        Reformat Enhancement and Encoding Guidance.

   On May 23, 2018, the BIA implemented and provided guidance 
        on the TAAMS TSR Module.

   On June 14, 2018, the BIA developed the Mortgage Tracker.

          --This tool tracks mortgage packages from receipt to the 
        final CTSR.

   On October 17, 2018, the BIA issued 52IAM 4, Processing 
        Mortgages of Trust Properties.

          --This establishes the BIA' s policy, responsibilities, and 
        procedures for the management and processing of leasehold and 
        land mortgages of trust property.

   On July 15, 2019, the BIA issued the Indian Affairs Mortgage 
        Handbook.

          --This handbook provides instructions to the BIA and guidance 
        for other agencies and lenders.

          --It also includes a process checklist, form and letter 
        templates, and timeframes for the review and approval of 
        mortgages, including the generation of TRSs.

   On October 4, 2019, the Director, BIA issued a memorandum 
        entitled Mortgages Top Priority which established the 
        processing of mortgages as a top priority.

   On August 25, 2020, the BIA provided training to regional 
        and agency staff on the Mortgage Handbook, with an emphasis on 
        timeliness with regard to TSRs and processing mortgage 
        applications within regulatory deadlines.

   In October 2020, the Lender Loan Portal went live.

          --The Lender Loan Portal is to be utilized by the U.S. 
        Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and lenders 
        to inquire on the status of a mortgage.

    Question 4. Ms. Isom-Clause, currently the Bureau of Indian Affairs 
does not initiate a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review 
until after the Title Status Report is complete. To expedite loan 
packages, why does the Bureau not initiate the processing of both these 
processes at the same time?
    Answer. With regard to NEPA, the approval of a mortgage by the BIA 
is normally categorically excluded (CatEx) from the preparation of an 
environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. The CatEx 
is documented in a checklist prepared by BIA nonrealty staff shortly 
after receipt of a mortgage for approval and does not add to the 
overall time for approval.
    The purpose of the initial TSR is to demonstrate to the lender that 
the potential mortgagee has a leasehold interest recorded on Indian 
title. This TSR issuance is an administrative action and not a federal 
decision that triggers a NEPA review.
    If an applicant is using the Section 184 Indian Home Loan Guarantee 
program, the Office of Loan Guarantee works to educate program 
participants that the BIA is not responsible for conducting or 
completing HUD environmental reviews required by the program. HUD 
environmental reviews are completed by Tribes pursuant to 24 CFR Part 
58. In cases where the Tribe is unable to or declines to perform the 
environmental review, the Tribe may request that HUD perform an 
environmental review pursuant to 24 CFR Part 50.

    Question 5. Ms. Isom-Clause, how often does the Bureau meet the 
deadlines reflected in the Bureau's existing handbooks and policy? How 
often do Bureau Regional Offices meet these deadlines? Please specify 
which regional offices meet these deadlines and the frequency with 
which they do so over the course of recent years.
    Answer. Below is a snapshot of the percent of mortgages approved 
within the identified timeframes in fiscal years (FY) 2020, 2021, and 
2022. This data is retrieved from data encoded into the Mortgage 
Tracking System. This data consists of dates and timelines from a 
coordinated effort between applicants, lenders, and BIA throughout the 
life of a mortgage application. We recognize that this data shows a 
need for concerted effort to improve processing times to approve 
mortgages within identified timelines. We are committed to making 
internal improvements and external education efforts to ensure that 
these timeframes are met.


     Percent of mortgages approved within the identified timeframes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     FY 2020      FY 2021      FY 2022
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land Mortgage                              71%          75%          75%
Leasehold Mortgage                         55%          46%          56%
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Below is a breakdown of the BIA Regional Offices with percent of 
mortgages approved within the identified timeframes in FY2020-FY2022. 
This data is retrieved from data encoded into the Mortgage Tracker 
System. This data consists of dates and timelines from a coordinated 
effort between applicants, lenders, and BIA throughout the life of a 
mortgage application. Not every BIA Region is identified in a fiscal 
year if no mortgage packages were completed. Please note that the 
number of mortgages received by each Region varies widely. We are using 
increased data analysis on mortgage processing to help to focus our 
efforts to improve processing times.

     Percent of mortgages approved within the identified timeframes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Region                 FY 2020      FY 2021      FY 2022
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A--Great Plains                           100%          98%          85%
B--Southern Plains                         N/A          N/A          N/A
C--Rockv Mountain                          33%          42%          14%
E--Alaska                                  N/A          N/A          N/A
F--Midwest                                 81%          74%          83%
G--Eastern Oklahoma                        N/A          N/A          N/A
H--Western                                 27%          17%           0%
J--Pacific                                 88%          60%          51%
M--Southwest                              100%         100%          75%
N-Navaio                                   70%          50%         100%
P--Northwest                               70%          63%          76%
S--Eastern                                 25%         100%          20%
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question 6. Ms. Isom-Clause, how would implementing statutory 
mortgage review and processing timelines change the Bureau's internal 
practices?
    Answer. Currently, mortgages involving property on trust lands must 
be reviewed and approved by the BIA in order for the mortgage to be 
finalized. This pertains to residential, commercial, and right-of-way 
mortgages, among others. The 2019 Indian Affairs Mortgage Handbook 
established timelines for BIA offices to process mortgage applications. 
However, the timelines are not always met. Placing these timelines into 
statute would strengthen the authority for improving the timeliness of 
mortgage application processing and ensure applicants are provided 
homeownership opportunities on trust land.

    Question 7. Ms. Isom-Clause, how would creating a Realty Ombudsman 
position in the Bureau change the Bureau's internal practices and help 
the Bureau meet the timeframes outlined in the Bureau's 2019 Mortgage 
Handbook?
    Answer. A realty ombudsman could help expedite the processing of 
Tribal mortgage applications. Specifically, a realty ombudsman could 
help Tribal contracted and compacted programs and lenders compile 
documents needed for complete mortgage applications. A realty ombudsman 
could also serve as a liaison and facilitate communications between the 
BIA, Tribes, applicants, lenders, and other Federal agencies. An 
ombudsman could work to improve tracking, reporting and lender 
education with federal lending partners. All of these functions would 
help ensure the timeframes in the 2019 Indian Affairs Mortgage Handbook 
are met.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Brian Schatz to 
                          Hon. Delores Pigsley
    Question 1. Please provide examples of how being unable to modify 
the current consent decree creates additional barriers for your Tribe.
    Answer. We are a Tribe of over 5000 people but are extremely 
limited in the number of fish, deer and elk we may harvest under the 
existing Consent Decree with the State of Oregon. This precludes us 
from being able to provide subsistence foods to our elders and other 
tribal members in need.

    Question 2. How would the proposed amendments in S. 3123 help 
modernize and improve your access to hunting and fishing opportunities, 
as well as management?
    Answer. The changes as proposed in S. 3123 would allow the Siletz 
Tribe to pursue a new agreement with the State of Oregon for additional 
harvest of traditional foods for ceremonial and subsistence purposes. 
It would modernize our access to hunting and fishing opportunities to 
the extent the geographic scope would be broadened to better reflect 
the Tribe's ancestral areas in Oregon. In so doing, we look forward to 
having more input with the State of Oregon in wildlife management to 
improve resources for all Oregonians.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Brian Schatz to 
                          Hon. Cheryle Kennedy
    Question 1. Please provide examples of how being unable to modify 
the current consent decree creates additional barriers for your Tribe.
    Answer. Grand Ronde's Consent Decree was signed in 1987 and 
authorized hunting and fishing rights within the State of Oregon's 
Trask Wildlife Unit. As such, the current agreement does not include 
provisions for hunting and fishing regulations that have been adopted 
by the State of Oregon after 1987.
    This means that Tribal hunting and fishing rights do not meet the 
same requirements as State hunting and fishing regulations, often 
putting Tribal members at a disadvantage when compared to the 
opportunities granted to participants purchasing State of Oregon 
hunting and fishing licenses. Specific examples include:

    Fishing

    The Consent Decree only allows fishing from the high water mark of 
a waterway, but a State fishing license allows off-shore fishing in 
bays and the ocean. Modifications would reconcile this inequity.
    At the time of the agreement, salmon and steelhead harvest cards 
were not required by the State and Tribal members could harvest these 
fish as needed. A harvest card is now required, and Tribal members must 
purchase these documents from the State; this is a monetary cost for 
something that used to be free.

    Shellfish Harvesting

    The State of Oregon regulates shellfish harvesting through a 
shellfish license and the Consent Decree does not include any 
authorization to harvest shellfish. Therefore, Tribal fishing licenses 
did not include the opportunity to harvest shellfish, including crab.
    The Tribe spent years negotiating a separate agreement to authorize 
Tribal membership to harvest shellfish which took 4 years of staff to 
staff coordination; while this was successful, it was not efficient.

    Hunting
    The Consent Decree limits the number of tags the Tribe may receive 
from the State of Oregon for hunting big game such as deer, elk, and 
bear. There are two inequities from these restrictions developed in 
1987:

         First, they do not account for the increase in Tribal 
        membership over time. The number of tags the agreement 
        authorizes was set for a membership of 1,761 people; today, the 
        current enrollment is 5,616.

         Second, the agreement is missing additional game that the 
        Tribe and its membership would like to be recognized, including 
        game birds, furbearers, squirrels, etc. Similarly to the 
        shellfish agreement, Tribal staff developed a Tribal Wildlife 
        Management Plan and spent 8 years negotiating with Oregon 
        Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) biologists on it prior 
        to the ODFW Commission authorizing it under an Oregon 
        Administrative Rule in September 2014; while successful, again 
        it was not efficient and not a rational way of doing business.

    The Consent Decree limits elk tags distributed to the Tribe (45 for 
first season and 45 for second season) while the State of Oregon does 
not limit the number of over the counter purchases for these elk tags 
(hunters must choose one season, but no limit to the number of tags in 
those season).
    The Consent Decree limits the Tribe to ``harvest'' 350 deer, 45 
combination tags for one deer or one elk, and 5 bear tags.

         Under ODFW, combination tags do not exist and have now 
        defaulted elk tags.

         Harvest success rate is 10 percent so the Tribe should 
        actually receive more tags to get to the harvest rage of 350, 
        45, and 5.

    Consent Decree is only recognized in the Trask Unit; it does not 
allow for the Tribe to issue tags for Tribally owned lands outside of 
the Trask.

    Question 2. How would the proposed amendments in S. 3126 help 
modernize and improve your access to hunting and fishing opportunities, 
as well as management?
    Answer. The proposed amendments in the bill would help modernize 
and improve hunting and fishing opportunities by providing an updated 
agreement that holds a mechanism to keep up with today's issues such as 
State of Oregon modifications to hunting and fishing regulations (such 
as shellfish, trout stamps, salmon and steelhead harvest cards, etc.)
    The Consent Decree is a static document and literally says it 
cannot be changed; this is not a way of doing business in natural 
resources management that depends wholly on adaptive management as 
resources change. Modifications would create a more flexible and 
dynamic document (not static), which will allow the Tribe to work with 
the State of Oregon and ODFW in a co-management environment to protect 
the resources; target, modify, respond to issues;
    It represents a time period of being stuck in 1987; modifications 
would allow a more current agreement that reflects current conditions; 
better managed and intentions; there are a ton of regulations 
implemented since 1987 that don't fit this agreement.
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Ben Ray Lujan to 
                              Sharon Vogel
    You state in your testimony that often Tribal home buyers feel as 
though their mortgage packages ``fall into a black hole'' at the Bureau 
of Indian Affairs. Because of this, you emphasize the importance of the 
Tribal Trust Land Homeownership Act of 2021 establishing a Realty 
Ombudsman with the authority to issue automatic waivers and assume 
approval if timelines for mortgage packages are not met.
    Question 1. Ms. Vogel, how would providing this authority to a 
Realty Ombudsman change outcomes for lenders and Native Americans 
pursuing homeownership on Tribal lands?
    Answer. Over the course of the approximately 25-year history of 
mortgage lending on tribal trust and restricted lands, a major 
challenge has been accountability and transparency by the BIA Realty 
Services and Land Titles and Records Offices (LTRO) in the processing 
of leases, title information, and mortgage packages. Prior to August 
2019 with the introduction of the BIA Mortgage Handbook, there was 
little standardization among the 100+ BIA Agency Offices and 12 
Regional Offices. Lenders and prospective homeowners have been at the 
mercy of this system and virtually no one outside of the BIA has ever 
seen a report on the performance of processing mortgage-related 
documents by either Realty Services or LTRO.
    A Realty Ombudsman could be an escalation resource to:

   Provide a mechanism for lenders and borrowers to resolve 
        delays resulting from documents stuck in the system at the 
        Agency or Regional Offices, or LTRO Offices.

   Interface with management regarding policy and procedure 
        issues.

   Ensure systems like the Mortgage Package Lookup Portal are 
        performing as intended.

   Monitor performance of document flow and identify trouble 
        spots that are inconsistent with the timeframes identified in 
        this legislation.

    You also suggest that the creation of an advisory group to work 
with the Bureau of Indian Affairs would help identify unnecessary 
leasing regulations.
    Question 2. Ms. Vogel, whose perspectives are important to hear on 
an advisory group related to leasing?
    Answer. It is important to hear the perspectives of all the 
stakeholders involved with the homebuying process on tribal land 
including: BIA officials, tribes and tribally designated housing 
entities (TDHEs) who have prioritized homeownership in their 
communities, tribes who have adopted their own residential leasing 
regulations pursuant to the HEARTH Act, lenders, secondary market 
investors, Native community development financial institutions, and 
title companies and closing agents.

    Question 3. Ms. Vogel, what existing regulations currently hinder 
Tribal homeownership? Please specify which changes would best 
streamline the process for Native American homebuyers and Tribal 
lenders.
    Answer. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has 
been in the process of revising its Section 184 Home Loan Guaranty 
program for the past five years. HUD should publish its proposed 
regulations as soon as possible.

    Question 4. Ms. Vogel, what additional statutory changes would help 
increase Native American homeownership on Tribal lands?
    Answer. In addition to streamlining the BIA processes as proposed 
in S. 3381, the Coalition proposes the following statutory changes:

         1. Congress should enact S. 2092, the Native American Rural 
        Homeownership Improvement Act of 2021, to improve access to the 
        USDA 502 single family direct home loan program on tribal land.
         The Native American Rural Homeownership Improvement Act of 
        2021 (S. 2092, H.R. 6331) would make the U.S. Department of 
        Agriculture (USDA) 502 home loan relending pilot permanent by 
        authorizing the USDA Secretary to use $50 million of existing 
        502 single family direct home loan appropriations for a 
        national relending program so that Native community development 
        financial institutions (CDFIs) across the country can increase 
        access to affordable home loans in rural Native communities.
         USDA Rural Development has limited staff resources to provide 
        Single Family Housing direct loans on tribal land. Native 
        community development financial institutions have experience 
        operating on tribal land. In addition, they provide extensive 
        financial and homebuyer education to their clients. The 
        proposed demonstration relending program would make Native 
        CDFIs eligible borrowers under the 502 direct loan program and 
        enable them to relend for the construction, acquisition, and 
        rehabilitation of affordable housing to eligible families.

         2. Reform the VA Department's Native American Direct Loan 
        Program to make it more accessible to Native veterans living on 
        trust land.
         The Native American Direct Loan (NADL) program is a veteran 
        home loan program authorized by 38 USC 3761 to provide 
        direct loans to Native American veterans living on trust lands. 
        Despite the availability of these funds earmarked for Native 
        veterans, loans are not being made to qualified borrowers. The 
        U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA Department) lacks 
        adequate staff resources to conduct outreach and provide the 
        required level of technical assistance to effectively deploy 
        the NADL program to qualified Native American veterans on trust 
        land.
         The Government Accounting Office (GAO) is currently conducting 
        a review of the NADL program. Congress should act swiftly to 
        consider the GAO's recommendations and enact legislative 
        reforms to improve the deployment of this NADL program.

         3. Provide adequate resources for the implementation of the 
        HEARTH Act to allow tribes to manage their own trust land 
        leasing processes. Congress should provide the U.S. Department 
        of Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs adequate staffing and 
        training resources to support training and capacity building 
        for tribes to implement the Helping Expedite and Advance 
        Responsible Tribal Home Ownership Act of 2012 (the HEARTH Act). 
        While this law appeared to provide a promising mechanism for 
        tribes to streamline the mortgage process by providing the 
        authority for tribes to manage their own leasing processes, the 
        full benefit of this authority has not yet been realized 
        because the BIA does not have adequate resources to support the 
        implementation of the Act.

         4. Amend federal statute to explicitly provide authority for 
        the Department of Justice (DOJ) U.S. Attorney's Office to 
        adjudicate HUD Section 184 foreclosures in tribal court. The 
        HUD Section 184 loan guarantee program, codified at 12 U.S.C. 
        1715z-13a, authorizes loan guarantees for housing 
        loans for Indian tribes, tribally designated housing entities, 
        and Indian families. If the borrower defaults on the loan, the 
        lender may either foreclose on the property or assign the loan 
        to HUD. If the lender assigns the loan to HUD, HUD works with 
        the DOJ Office of U.S. Attorneys to pursue foreclosures in 
        state or federal court.
         According to HUD counsel, 28 U.S.C. 1345 does not 
        authorize the filing of foreclosure actions by the U.S. 
        Attorney on HUD's behalf in tribal courts, unless permitted by 
        some other act of Congress. The statute authorizing the U.S. 
        Attorney to foreclose on property in state court, 28 U.S.C. 
        2410, does not provide similar authority to conduct 
        such foreclosures in tribal court.
         Section 248 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 
        1715z-13) authorized the HUD Section 248 Mortgage 
        Insurance on Indian Land Program. According to 12 U.S.C. 
        1715z-13(g)(5), HUD's Section 248 foreclosure 
        proceedings ``may take place in a tribal court, a court of 
        competent jurisdiction, or Federal district court.'' This 
        statutory authority should be extended to the HUD Section 184 
        loan guarantee program.

         5. Streamline and coordinate the requirements of each federal 
        agency to conduct an environmental assessment pursuant to the 
        National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
         Congress should designate HUD as the lead federal agency to 
        manage a single, unified, and coordinated environmental review 
        process on trust land pursuant to the requirements of NEPA so 
        that tribes can use a HUD environmental clearance to satisfy 
        the requirements of all federal agencies involved. In addition, 
        Congress should provide the statutory authority for the HUD 184 
        program to issue a categorical exclusion under NEPA.
         Under current law, ever federal action requires an 
        environmental review (ER) which means that the BIA issuing a 
        residential lease may trigger an ER requirement and then 
        approving a mortgage encumbrance may require another ER. In 
        addition, if multiple federal agencies are involved in the 
        construction of one home, there could be multiple environmental 
        reviews requirements from multiple federal agencies.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Brian Schatz to 
                              Sharon Vogel
    Question 1. Please explain why the path to homeownership on Tribal 
lands takes so long, as compared to non-Tribal lands. Are the reforms 
in S. 3381 necessary--if so, how so?
    Answer. Homeownership on Tribal lands is complicated. The primary 
issue concerns the Laws, Regulations and procedures required by the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs to effect a marketable title to assign to a 
lender. The process is complicated and hails back to a time when tribes 
had little understanding of the components of securing interest in 
land. The process implemented by the Bureau of Indian Affairs has on 
occasion been updated but the outcomes for Tribes pursuing 
homeownership under current rules, are still not working. S.3381 could 
help but as I testified in February, we do not see any effective 
penalty to the BIA for not meeting deadlines required by the proposed 
legislation. Even with an ombudsman, what leverage is included to 
provide accountability and what additional options do tribes have 
available if established time lines are not met?
    The second impediment to lending on Tribal trust lands continues to 
be limited secondary markets for loans once they are completed by a 
qualified lender. Almost all Trust land loans are ``qualified'' due to 
secondary market requirements that most Trust land loans cannot meet. 
(Title insurance, appraisal, market data, etc.)This issue is compounded 
by the costs of initiating loans on trust land, and the time delays 
that reduce the profit margins on most trust land loans.
    The third issue impacting length of time required to finalize trust 
land loans is the inflexibility of federal programs that offer trust 
land mortgages such as the HUD 184 program and the USDA RD 502 
Guarantee program. Neither program has been willing to negotiate with 
tribes regarding certain lease forms, tribal court issues and program 
procedures. Most are not statutory but reside more in each agencies 
OGC. A fear of tribal sovereignty issues and an absence of federal/
tribal law seems to cause both agencies to take a more conservative 
approach to making their loans available.

    Question 2. Are there additional statutory changes Congress should 
consider?
    Answer. We believe that tribes and lenders would benefit from the 
creation of a new government -sponsored entity (GSE).This concept was 
discussed in the early 1990's but lost momentum when Congress passed 
legislation that allowed Tribes to Develop Community Development 
Financial Institutions. (CDFI) While native CDFI's continue to show 
great potential, they too need a market for their home loans. Certain 
economic development loans initiated on restricted Tribal lands could 
also benefit from a Native GSE. UNAHA has also advocated a tribal set-
aside for USDA Rural Development funding. Tribes are not accessing 
these programs in large numbers due to the lack of recognition of 
Tribal sovereignty by USDA.

    Question 3. In your testimony, you recommended the creation on an 
advisory committee that would assist the Bureau to identify and remove 
antiquated leasing regulations. Are there specific sections you suggest 
removing? How would removing these sections assist in processing lease 
documents: What impact, if any, would the removal of these sections 
have on proposed S. 3881?
    Answer. UNAHA believes that an Advisory Committee made up of BIA 
Leasing Officials and knowledgeable tribal housing leaders experts and 
lenders could address needed changes in current regulations and 
procedures. While S.3381 adds urgency and focus to existing processes, 
we are proposing a beginning to end review that would allow the Bureau 
and tribes to create a document that would lighten the load for both 
parties.
    An example would be that currently, under the Bureau's PROCEDURAL 
HANDBOOK for Leasing and Permitting, Section 2.0 GENERAL AUTHORITIES 
AND POLICIES, 2.1 Federal Law, allows leasing pursuant to Section 17 of 
the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) to take place without Secretary 
Approval. Are tribes made aware of this option when creating the legal 
status of their housing TDHEs?
    The Bureau's PROCEDURAL HANDBOOK also limits residential leases to 
a term not to exceed twenty-five years and a single renewal, when 
elsewhere in the HANDBOOK, it recognizes that NAHASDA (25 U.S.C. 4211) 
allows a 50 year lease. (NAHASDA allows 50 year residential leases 
without further regulation) Under 2.8 of the Handbook, the Bureau seems 
to give tribes more leeway regarding residential leases. It states in 
part; ``the BIA will recognize applicable tribal laws regulating 
activities on land under agricultural, residential and business 
lease''. This appears to be a strong argument tribes to review the 
HEARTH Act and its potential.
    The Advisory Committee could review each of the relevant statutes 
and recommend changes or amendments to simplify the process and 
recognize imperfections in current process. In S.3381, the Ombudsman 
could be authorized to work with the committee whether the Advisory 
Committee is formalized in legislation or is organized separately. It 
would be beneficial to make it official so that recommendations have 
some opportunity to become regulatory.
    We would also recommend that the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs 
revisit the HUD 184 program. As written originally, many of the issues 
we are facing today could have been addressed. HUD unilaterally has 
made changes over the past 25 years, many benefiting non restricted 
land borrowing by tribes. We would encourage the Senate Committee to 
hold an oversight hearing on this eight billion dollar federal program 
that has had new regulations in development (with no real tribal input) 
for nearly four years! It works fine on fee land, but it was created 
for Tribal Trust Land!!
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Brian Schatz to 
                          Hon. Reid Milanovich
    Question 1. How will clarifying the status of the land transferred 
from BLM to the Tribe assist the Tribe in managing its natural and 
cultural resources on the reservation?
    Answer. The BLM, while well meaning, does not have the staff or 
resources that the Tribe dedicates to monitoring trails and resources 
under its authority, especially when land ownership is mixed in a 
square mile checkerboard manner. Holding the exchanged lands in trust 
reaffirms the Tribe's authority and removes any confusion about which 
sovereign is responsible.

    Question 2. You stated in your testimony that the Tribe intends to 
continue to allow public access on former BLM Lands that are currently 
within the boundaries of its reservation. Does the Tribe retain a 
similar level of management influence over Tribal lands that were 
transferred to the BLM as part of the land exchange that helped to 
create the San Jacinto National Monument?
    Answer. No. The Tribe relinquishes its responsibility and influence 
over lands that are transferred to and managed by the BLM. The Tribe 
will continue to be a co-manager of the Monument as originally 
envisioned.

    Question 3. Would greater influence in the development of federal 
land management plans, specifically related to the protection of 
cultural and sacred places and practices, benefit the Tribe? At what 
stage in the decisionmaking process should Tribes be involved?
    Answer. Yes. The Tribe, through its Tribal Historic Preservation 
Office, and the agency would greatly benefit from early comprehensive 
consultation prior to the timing required in the statutes. It will 
allow for a collaborative process whereby the Tribe could provide input 
on culturally sensitive areas for siting projects on federal lands. It 
would result in an efficient planning and implementation process for 
the agency and could possibly streamline the compliance process in the 
event of an inadvertent discovery during the construction phase of any 
ground disturbing project.
    As the designated steward of the Tribe's cultural heritage, charged 
with protecting, preserving, and managing resources on all tribal lands 
within the exterior boundary of the reservation, the Tribal Historic 
Preservation Office (THPO) is the appropriate office for managing the 
Tribe's cultural resources, sacred sites, and places of cultural or 
religious importance. Assigning the property to Trust status provides 
protection to cultural and sacred places by placing the lands under 
THPO oversight. The THPO complies with the National Historic 
Preservation Act (NHPA), American Indian Religious Freedom Act, 
Executive Order 13007 on Indian Sacred Sites, Native American Graves 
Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), and the Archaeological 
Resource Protection Act (ARPA).
    NHPA section P.L. 102-575 allows federally recognized Indian Tribes 
to take on formal responsibilities for the preservation of significant 
Historic Properties on tribal lands. Specifically, Section 101(d)(2) 
allows Tribes to assume any and all of the function of a State Historic 
Preservation Officer (SHPO) with respect to tribal land. Additionally, 
agencies are required to consult with the THPO in lieu of the SHPO for 
undertakings occurring on, or affecting Historic Properties on tribal 
lands. The Agua Caliente THPO assumed these responsibilities through 
designation as a THPO with the National Park Service in 2005.

                                  [all]