[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]






 
             UNLOCKING INDIAN COUNTRY'S ECONOMIC POTENTIAL

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

                           OVERSIGHT HEARING

                               before the

               SUBCOMMITTEE ON INDIAN AND INSULAR AFFAIRS

                                 of the

                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                        Wednesday, March 1, 2023

                               __________

                            Serial No. 118-6

                               __________

       Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources


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

             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
 51-429PDF          WASHINGTON : 2023
         
          
      

                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                     BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Chairman
                    DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Vice Chairman
                  RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Member

Doug Lamborn, CO                    Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA                Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 
Tom McClintock, CA                              CNMI
Paul Gosar, AZ                         Jared Huffman, CA
Garret Graves, LA                      Ruben Gallego, AZ
Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS           Joe Neguse, CO
Doug LaMalfa, CA                       Mike Levin, CA
Daniel Webster, FL                     Katie Porter, CA
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR           Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Russ Fulcher, ID                       Melanie A. Stansbury, NM
Pete Stauber, MN                       Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
John R. Curtis, UT                     Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, NY
Tom Tiffany, WI                        Kevin Mullin, CA
Jerry Carl, AL                         Val T. Hoyle, OR
Matt Rosendale, MT                     Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
Lauren Boebert, CO                     Seth Magaziner, RI
Cliff Bentz, OR                        Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
Jen Kiggans, VA                        Ed Case, HI
Jim Moylan, GU                         Debbie Dingell, MI
Wesley P. Hunt, T  X                   Susie Lee, NV
Mike Collins, GA
Anna Paulina Luna FL
John Duarte, CA
Harriet M. Hageman, WY



                    Vivian Moeglein, Staff Director
                      Tom Connally, Chief Counsel
                 Lora Snyder, Democratic Staff Director
                   http://naturalresources.house.gov
                                 ------                                

               SUBCOMMITTEE ON INDIAN AND INSULAR AFFAIRS

                     HARRIET M. HAGEMAN, WY, Chair

                JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON, PR, Vice Chair

               TERESA LEGER FERNANDEZ, NM, Ranking Member

Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS         Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 
Doug LaMalfa, CA                         CNMI
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR         Ruben Gallego, AZ
Jerry Carl, AL                       Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
Jim Moylan, GU                       Ed Case, HI
Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio      Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio

                                 ------                                
                                CONTENTS

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing held on Wednesday, March 1, 2023.........................     1

Statement of Members:

    Hageman, Hon. Harriet M., a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of Wyoming.......................................     1
    Leger Fernandez, Hon. Teresa, a Representative in Congress 
      from the State of New Mexico...............................     3

Statement of Witnesses:

    Klatush, Hon. Dustin, Chairman, Confederated Tribes of the 
      Chehalis Reservation from the State of Washington..........     4
        Prepared statement of....................................     6
        Questions submitted for the record.......................     8
    Rupnick, Hon. Joseph, Chairman, Prairie Band Potawatomi 
      Nation, Mayetta, Kansas....................................     8
        Prepared statement of....................................    10
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    11
    Saunders, Wavalene, Vice Chairwoman, Tohono O'odham Nation 
      from the State of Arizona..................................    13
        Prepared statement of....................................    14
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    17
    Robison, Jason, Land and Resources Officer, Cow Creek Band of 
      Umpqua Tribe of Indians, from the State of Oregon..........    17
        Prepared statement of....................................    19
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    21

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:

    Rupnick, Hon. Joseph, Chairman, Prairie Band Potawatomi 
      Nation, Supplemental Statement for the Record..............    35

    Submission for the Record by Representative Grijalva

        United South and Eastern Tribes (USET), Statement for the 
          Record.................................................    39
                                     



   OVERSIGHT HEARING ON UNLOCKING INDIAN COUNTRY'S ECONOMIC POTENTIAL

                              ----------                              


                        Wednesday, March 1, 2023

                     U.S. House of Representatives

               Subcommittee on Indian and Insular Affairs

                     Committee on Natural Resources

                             Washington, DC

                              ----------                              

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:03 a.m., in 
Room 1324 Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Harriet Hageman 
[Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Hageman, LaMalfa, Gonzalez-Colon; 
and Leger Fernandez.
    Also present: Representative Stansbury.

    Ms. Hageman. The Subcommittee on Indian and Insular Affairs 
will come to order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized 
to declare recess of the Subcommittee at any time. The 
Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on ``Unlocking 
Indian Country's Economic Potential''.
    Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at 
hearings are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Minority 
Member. I, therefore, ask unanimous consent that all other 
Members' opening statements be made part of the hearing record 
if they are submitted in accordance with Committee Rule 3(o). 
Without objection, so ordered.
    I ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman from New 
Mexico, Ms. Stansbury, be allowed to sit and participate in 
today's hearing. Without objection, so ordered.
    I will now recognize myself for an opening statement.

 STATEMENT OF THE HON. HARRIET M. HAGEMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
               CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING

    Ms. Hageman. Today, there are 574 federally recognized 
Indian tribes with a population of approximately 2.8 million 
American Indian and Alaskan Natives living in the United 
States. There are approximately 56 million acres of Indian 
land, and of that, 46 million acres belong to Indian tribes.
    And an additional approximately 44 million acres of land in 
Alaska are owned in fee simple by Alaska Native corporations 
under unique terms established by Congress to settle Aboriginal 
land claims in Alaska.
    Although tribes are sovereign governments, some suffer 
health, social, and economic disparities, as well as higher 
poverty rates in comparison to other non-Native communities. 
These disparities contribute to higher rates of unemployment in 
Indian Country, and an underdeveloped business and entrepreneur 
environment.
    For many Indian tribes and Alaskan Natives, real property 
holdings are the basis for social, cultural, and religious life 
and often their single most important economic resource. 
Typically, Indian lands primarily fall into one of three 
categories: trust, fee, and restricted fee.
    Trust land is owned and managed by the United States 
through the Department of the Interior, and these lands are 
held in trust for the benefit of an Indian tribe or individual 
Indians. It is inalienable and nontaxable.
    Restricted fee land is fee simple land that an Indian tribe 
or individual Indian may own and hold title but is subject to a 
restriction against alienation and taxation. An Indian tribe or 
individual Indians also own fee simple land that can be freely 
alienated or encumbered without Federal approval.
    The current paradigm of the trust responsibility as 
conceived and implemented by the government has, in the view of 
some, wreaked all manner of harm on tribal communities. When 
Federal Indian land is held in trust by the Department of the 
Interior, legal title for that land is effectively owned by the 
Federal Government.
    This distinction means that no decisions about these trust 
lands can occur without the approval of Washington bureaucrats. 
And this can slow or, in some cases, halt development for 
years. It also drives up costs.
    While some statutes like the Long-Term Leasing Act have 
enabled some tribes to lease their land for longer terms, many 
tribes still face the effects of the Non-Intercourse Act which 
limits their ability to buy, lease, or sell land for economic 
development purposes.
    We are going to hear some of those stories today from our 
witnesses and what these individual exemptions allowed the 
represented tribes to accomplish. Expanding the ability of 
tribes to use their land in ways without needing to come to the 
government for approval is crucial for furthering self-
determination and economic security.
    It is in this spirit that yesterday I introduced a bill 
that would allow all federally recognized tribes to authorize 
leases of up to 99 years for lands held in trust. This would 
get rid of the piecemeal approach Congress has taken on these 
requests for the past 67 years.
    Congress should continue to provide additional tools to all 
federally recognized Indian tribes to conduct the activities 
that they choose. Tribal governments already seek to make the 
best decisions for their members, for their social, cultural, 
and economic security.
    We should ensure that Indian lands whether owned in fee, 
owned written restricted fee, or held in trust for the benefit 
of the tribes are able to be used as the tribes want to use 
them.
    I look forward to today's discussion and how Congress can 
remove onerous restrictions on Indian lands, including trusts 
lands, so that the tribes can unlock economic potential and 
diversify their business and economic interests.
    The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Minority Member for 
her statement.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. TERESA LEGER FERNANDEZ, A REPRESENTATIVE 
            IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Good morning, all. And thank you to 
the witnesses for joining us here today. I would also like to 
extend my warm welcome to the Chairwoman, who is now heading up 
the Committee. And I look forward to ongoing bipartisan support 
on the issues affecting Native American tribes and our 
Indigenous peoples as well as the insular areas.
    And I think that that is one of the wonderful parts of this 
Committee, the Subcommittee. It has always acted in a way that 
puts the interests of our Indigenous peoples, our Native 
Americans first. And for that, I am very, very pleased and 
proud of the great work we have done.
    Economic sovereignty is how I often think of these issues, 
right? Tribes need economic sovereignty. And today's topic of 
Unlocking Indian Tribes Economic Potential is especially timely 
after the great bipartisan economic development work we 
accomplished last session. We did get a lot done and there is 
always more to do. The journey is a journey, right? We 
constantly have an obligation to move ourselves forward.
    So, last Congress, we passed 26 tribal bills out of the 
House of Representatives, 18 of which were signed into law. And 
this noted the bipartisanship work we did. And, indeed, the two 
bills that we passed last Congress, which we will be hearing 
more about today, S. 3773, authorized the leases of land for 
the Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation, and S. 108 
to authorize the Seminole Tribe of Florida to transfer lease 
certain lands.
    And when we brought those bills, and as we talked about 
those bills, we pointed out the importance of making sure that 
we did not continue to do this on a piecemeal basis, but that 
we would create a fix that would apply to all tribes. So, thank 
you very much, Madam Chairwoman, for introducing the 
legislation. And we look forward to working with you as we move 
forward on it.
    We laid the groundwork back there for the broader fix 
because we know that there are indeed obstacles, especially in 
terms of being able to move quickly on issues around developing 
tribal land.
    I did that work for about 30 years, so I was grinding my 
teeth more than once over the difficulties we were having 
getting the BIA to move quickly on leases or rights-of-way. I 
worked hard to have the BIA change its rights-of-way and 
leasing statutes so that it would be easier for tribes to move, 
because what we are dealing with is not a silver bullet, but is 
one of the important pieces as we move forward.
    The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, for example, we spent 
$13 billion for tribal communities. But if we cannot get those 
$13 billion into the ground because rights-of-ways or leases 
are taking too long, that is going to be a problem, which is 
why we actually did appropriate additional monies for the BIA 
to address the studies they need to do.
    My bill last year dealing with tribal historic preservation 
officers, and the whole Section 106 study to provide more 
funding for that, to permanently authorize it, would be another 
step that we need so those processes move faster.
    I need to tell you about one example of a great economic 
development engine in New Mexico because I think it is telling 
about one way you could do this. So, the 19 pueblos owned, 
jointly, former boarding school land in Albuquerque, and they 
operate it jointly through a Section 17 corporation.
    What they have chosen to do is to provide leases of that 
land in a master lease concept, right? So, they get all the 
approvals upfront. And then they, themselves, direct the 
development of that land so that retailers are renting from 
them, so that the BIA is renting office space from the tribes 
it serves themselves, generating significant resources.
    And one of the things I love about this is, as they are 
generating those resources, they are making sure that they are 
controlling both the land, the use of the land, and providing 
the cultural resources that are so important. So, on that land 
is the Indian Pueblo Cultural Center, the center that is one of 
the third most visited sites in New Mexico, and we have a lot 
of tourism.
    That is why I think it is such a beautiful example of, how 
do we help tribes do what the Indian Pueblo marketing did in 
New Mexico, which is develop their lands, continue to control 
the economic destiny, as well as protecting their cultural 
heritage.
    So, I look forward to hearing the testimony of the 
witnesses today as we move to promote tribal economic 
sovereignty. Thank you so very much.
    Ms. Hageman. Thank you. And I will now introduce our 
witnesses. The Honorable Dustin Klatush, Chairman, Confederated 
Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation, Oakville, Washington; the 
Honorable Joseph Rupnick, Chairman, Prairie Band Potawatomi 
Nation, Mayetta, Kansas; the Honorable Wavalene Saunders, Vice 
Chairwoman, Tohono O'odham Nation, Sells, Arizona; and Mr. 
Jason Robison, Land and Resources Officer, Cow Creek Band of 
Umpqua Tribe of Indians, Roseburg, Oregon.
    Let me remind the witnesses that under Committee Rules, 
they must limit their oral statements to 5 minutes, but their 
entire statement will appear in the hearing record. To begin 
your testimony, please press the talk button on the microphone, 
which I often forget.
    And we must use timing lights. When you begin, the light 
will turn green. When you have 1 minute left, the light will 
turn yellow. And at the end of 5 minutes, the light will turn 
red, and I will ask you to please complete your statement. I 
will also allow all witnesses on the panel to testify before 
Member questioning.
    The Chair now recognizes the Honorable Dustin Klatush for 5 
minutes.

 STATEMENT OF THE HON. DUSTIN KLATUSH, CHAIRMAN, CONFEDERATED 
TRIBES OF THE CHEHALIS RESERVATION FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

    Mr. Klatush. Good morning, Chair Hageman, Ranking Member 
Leger Fernandez, and members of the Committee. My name is 
Dustin Klatush, and I am the Chairman of the Confederated 
Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation. I appreciate the 
opportunity to testify today on the Chehalis Tribes' 
recommendations to promote and eliminate barriers to tribal 
economic development.
    The Chehalis Reservation is located halfway between Seattle 
and Portland off Interstate 5 in Southwest Washington State. 
Southwest Washington has long been an economically depressed 
area, lacking in businesses and jobs for both Tribal members 
and non-Natives alike.
    Most of the Tribes' 4,800-acre land base is in a flood 
plain and the Tribe has very little land suitable for economic 
development. For this reason, the Tribe has had to be 
innovative with land that it has to maximize our ability to 
generate revenue and to provide for our citizens.
    The Chehalis Tribe is proud to have accomplished two firsts 
in Indian Country. In 2008, the Tribe constructed the first 
Great Wolf Lodge Waterpark on Indian lands. The Tribe also 
opened the first legal distillery in Indian Country.
    Congress helped in an effort by repealing an 1834 law that 
prohibited construction of distilleries on Indian lands. The 
law was part of the 1834 Non-Intercourse Act and required 
Indian agents to destroy and break up distilleries within the 
areas. The law even stated that in breaking up distilleries, it 
shall be lawful to employ the use of the military force of the 
United States.
    The Tribes' Talking Cedars brewery and distillery was the 
first ever legal distillery in Indian Country. It is also the 
largest craft distillery west of the Mississippi River. This 
success could not have occurred if Congress had not repealed 
the 1834 law. Like the now-repealed distillery law, there are 
laws within the Committee's jurisdiction that should be 
repealed or be amended to make them more accessible to tribes.
    Late last year, Congress added the Chehalis Tribe to the 
list of Indian tribes for which the Bureau of Indian Affairs 
can approve 99-year leases. The Tribe had received two letters 
of intent from outside the companies to develop warehouse 
facilities on reservation land that the Tribe owns along major 
highways.
    Both proposals required leases with terms longer than the 
25-initial term, and the single 25-year extension allowed under 
the Long-Term Leasing Act. So, we went to work on a bill that 
added the Chehalis Tribe to the statute and allowed the 
Chehalis Tribe to enter into 99-year leases.
    These bills have always been noncontroversial because they 
simply allowed the Secretary to approve leases of up to 99 
years but did not require it. We were hopeful that the bill 
could steadily progress due to legislative process.
    What occurred, however, was a drawn-out situation where all 
Indian-related bills were being held in the Senate for a reason 
unrelated to the merits of the bills themselves. Months dragged 
on with no Senate floor movement on nearly all Indian-related 
standalone bills, including our bill.
    The Tribe was fortunate to finally have its bill approved 
by the Senate on December 20, 2022. The House passed the bill 
on December 22, 2022, and sent it to the President.
    Since the Tribe's bill was signed into law, the Tribe has 
reengaged with third-party developers and hopes to find or to 
have deals in place soon and begin construction during the 
building season this year.
    While working to secure passage of the Chehalis Tribes' 99-
year lease bill, the Tribe advocated for an amendment to the 
Long-Term Leasing Act that would allow all Indian tribes to 
obtain 99-year leases.
    We do not believe that individual bills to add tribes to 
the statute is a good use of the tribes' or Congress' time and 
resources. Given our experience, we urge Congress to amend the 
Long-Term Leasing Act to allow all federally recognized Indian 
tribes the option to enter into leases with terms of up to 99 
years.
    Thank you for allowing me to testify today. I look forward 
to answering any questions that the Committee may have.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Klatush follows:]
     Prepared Statement of the Honorable Dustin Klatush, Chairman, 
            Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation
    Thank you, Chair Hageman, Ranking Member Leger-Fernandez, and 
members of the Committee for holding this oversight hearing. My name is 
Dustin Klatush and I am the Chairman of the Confederated Tribes of the 
Chehalis Reservation (the ``Tribe''). My testimony will focus on the 
Chehalis Tribe's recommendations to promote and eliminate barriers to 
tribal economic development.
    The Chehalis Reservation was created by Executive Order in 1864 and 
is located between the confluence of the Chehalis River and the Black 
River. Geographically, the Tribe is located approximately halfway 
between Seattle and Portland off Interstate 5. Southwest Washington has 
long been an economically depressed area lacking in businesses and jobs 
for Tribal members and non-Indians alike.
    The Tribe was, and is, a fishing tribe, and diminished fish runs 
have made fishing more difficult every year. In the 1970s before 
economic development became possible, Chehalis tribal fishermen earned, 
on average, $1900 a year. This required many tribal members to work 
off-reservation for the state government or for non-Indian businesses 
to provide for their families.
    The Tribe operates a casino but is always looking for ways to 
diversify its economic base to continue to support education, health, 
housing, safety, and other services for its members. Approximately 40 
percent of Chehalis tribal members are under the age of 18 and will 
need jobs in the future.
    Most of the Tribe's 4,800-acre land base is in a flood plain and 
the Tribe has very little land suitable for economic development. For 
this reason, the Tribe has had to be innovative with the land that it 
has to maximize its ability to generate revenue and to provide for our 
citizens. In this regard, the Chehalis Tribe is proud to have 
constructed the first Great Wolf Lodge waterpark in Indian country in 
2008.

    The Tribe has the following recommendations for the Committee to 
consider:

I. ALLOW ALL INDIAN TRIBES TO ENTER INTO 99-YEAR LEASES

    In the final days of the 117th Congress, the House approved S. 
3773, a bill that amended the Long-Term Leasing Act of 1955 to add the 
Chehalis Tribe to the list of Indian tribes for which the Secretary of 
the Interior is authorized to approve leases with terms of up to 99 
years. House passage sent the bill to the President, who signed S. 3773 
into law on January 5, 2023.
    The Tribe was, and remains, interested in developing warehouse 
facilities on two parcels of its reservation trust land. The warehouses 
would serve supply chain needs between the cities of Seattle, Tacoma, 
Olympia, and Portland. The Tribe had received two letters of intent for 
developing the facilities from outside developers, but both proposals 
would have required leases with terms longer than the 25 initial term 
and the single 25-year extension allowed under the Long-Term Leasing 
Act.
    The Tribe promptly began working with the Washington state 
congressional delegation to get House and Senate bills introduced as 
quickly as possible to add the Chehalis Tribe to the statute. The 
Tribe's goal was to secure the amendment into law by the end of the 
117th Congress not only to maintain the interest of the outside 
developers, but also to enable the Tribe to secure a lease and begin 
construction during the Pacific Northwest construction season.
    Historically, for an Indian tribe to enter 99-year leases, Congress 
has legislatively added the tribe's name at the end of the pertinent 
clause in the Long-Term Leasing Act. These have always been treated as 
ministerial, non-controversial bills, because they simply allow the 
Secretary to approve leases of up to 99 years, but do not require it. 
The Chehalis Tribe was hopeful that its bill could steadily progress 
through the legislative process.
    What ended up occurring, however, was a protracted situation where 
all Indian-related bills were being held in the Senate for reasons 
unrelated to the merits of the bills themselves. Months dragged on with 
no Senate floor movement on nearly all Indian-related standalone bills, 
including S. 3773. Finally, the logjam began to break the second week 
of December 2022 and individual bills were able to be considered on the 
Senate floor. The Chehalis Tribe was fortunate to have been able to 
have its bill approved by the Senate on December 20, 2022, and the 
House passed the bill on December 22, 2022. The clock could have easily 
run out, however, and the Tribe would have had to start anew in the 
118th Congress.
    Since the Tribe's bill was signed into law in early January, the 
Tribe has reengaged with the third-party developers it was 
communicating with previously and hopes to have a deal in place soon 
and begin construction this year.
    During its efforts to secure enactment of its 99-year lease bill, 
the Tribe advocated for a going-forward amendment to the Long-Term 
Leasing Act to ensure that any Indian tribes that needed longer term 
leases would not need to pursue individual bills that are subject to 
the vagaries of Congress.
    While the Chehalis Tribe was ultimately successful, it does not 
believe that individual bills to add tribes to the statute is a good 
use of the tribes' or Congress's time and resources. Given our 
experience, we urge Congress to amend the Long-Term Leasing Act to 
allow all federally recognized Indian tribes the option to enter into 
leases with terms of up to 99 years.

II. OTHER FEDERAL LAWS EITHER REMAIN OBSTACLES TO TRIBAL ECONOMIC 
        DEVELOPMENT OR CAN BE IMPROVED

    Various laws in the U.S. Code that are in this Committee's 
jurisdiction are either impediments to tribal economic development or 
could be amended to make them more useful to tribes. The Chehalis Tribe 
has firsthand experience in this regard when, in January 2018, it was 
informed that an 1834 law that prohibited construction of distilleries 
in Indian country likely prohibited the Tribe's plans to begin 
construction on its long-awaited distillery project.
    The law in question, which had never been enforced, was part of the 
1834 Non-Intercourse Act and prohibited construction of distilleries in 
Indian country. The law charged Indian agents with responsibility to 
``destroy and break up'' such distilleries in their respective Indian 
agencies. The law even provided that in breaking up distilleries, ``it 
shall be lawful to employ the use of the military force of the United 
States.''
    Not desiring war, the Chehalis Tribe instead turned to the 
Washington state delegation and this Committee for assistance in 
repealing the law. From introduction to enactment, the process took 
only nine months, which is a testament to the bipartisan recognition 
that these types of outdated laws should not be allowed to impede 
progress. In 2020, the Tribe opened the Talking Cedars brewery and 
distillery, which is the first ever legal distillery in Indian country 
and the largest craft distillery west of the Mississippi River. This 
success could not have happened had the 1834 law not been repealed by 
Congress.
    There are other laws that could and should be repealed or updated. 
As the Committee is aware, a separate provision of the Non-Intercourse 
Act requires Congress's consent to alienate Indian land. The provision 
has been interpreted by some courts as applying to fee land that an 
Indian tribe purchases on the open market, which has caused some tribes 
delays or difficulties in obtaining financing for economic development 
projects. This is another example of an antiquated law that could be 
amended to eliminate unintended impacts.
    A separate law that can be updated to make it more effective is the 
Buy Indian Act, which is within this Committee's jurisdiction. The Buy 
Indian Act provides the Department of the Interior and certain agencies 
within the Department of Health and Human Services (``HHS'') with the 
authority to set aside certain contracts for Indian-owned and 
controlled businesses. The Act does not extend to other federal 
agencies, however.
    The Chehalis Tribe is in the early stages of seeking to supply 
neighboring military installations with products from its Talking 
Cedars distillery. Currently, the Buy Indian Act does not apply to 
departments outside of Interior or HHS, which is a potential 
complicating factor in working with Department of Defense procurement 
officials. Expanding the Buy Indian Act to other federal agencies would 
benefit Indian country and promote tribal economic development.
    I thank the Committee for allowing me to provide testimony today 
and look forward to answering any questions.

                                 ______
                                 

 Questions Submitted for the Record to Hon. Dustin Klatush, Chairman, 
            Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation

The Honorable Dustin Klatush did not submit responses to the Committee 
by the appropriate deadline for inclusion in the printed record.

            Questions Submitted by Representative Westerman
    Question 1. Please further expand on your written testimony and 
highlight further examples of where your tribal government has been 
able to successfully utilize tribal lands for economic benefit.

    Question 2. Please further expand from your oral testimony on how 
the lack of staffing at the regional Bureau of Indian Affairs 
headquarters has affected economic development plans.

    2a) What would be your recommendation to Congress or to the Bureau 
to improve these issues?

    Question 3. Please further expand on your written testimony and 
provide an update on the warehouse acilities developmental project.

    3a) Will you be pursuing any other projects with the tribe's new 
leasing authority?

    Question 4. Is there any further information you think the 
Committee needs to make good policy regarding land use restrictions for 
tribal lands?

                                 ______
                                 

    Ms. Hageman. I thank the witness for his testimony.
    The Chair now recognizes the Honorable Joseph Rupnick for 5 
minutes.

 STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOSEPH RUPNICK, CHAIRMAN, PRAIRIE BAND 
               POTAWATOMI NATION, MAYETTA, KANSAS

    Mr. Rupnick. Good morning, Madam Chair Hageman, Ranking 
Member Leger Fernandez, and distinguished members of the 
Subcommittee. My name is Joseph Rupnick, and I serve as 
Chairman for Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation. I am a Veteran in 
the United States Calvary, and I represent about 4,500 Prairie 
Band Potawatomi people, most of whom live on the reservation in 
Kansas, which is defined by our 1846 treaty with the U.S. 
Government.
    I am honored to be with you here today to share my thoughts 
of Unlocking Indian Country's Economic Potential, particularly 
as it relates to the ownership and use of tribal lands.
    Originally, our people owned and resided in lands in 
Northern Illinois, but we were subject to removal treaties in 
1829 and 1833, that relinquished all but 1,280 acres of land. 
Our 1846 treaty established a 900-square-mile reservation for 
us in Kansas, but development pressures, the Federal 
Government's land allotment policies, and outright theft 
resulted in most of our lands being lost to non-Indians.
    Just a few decades ago, our Nation owned less than 5 
percent of the land originally promised us. Today, lands within 
our reservation are heavily checkerboarded, meaning that there 
are mixed parcels of land within the reservation owned by our 
Nation, individual Nation citizens, and non-Indians. And 
because this status of land differs based on ownership, so too 
does the jurisdiction and taxing authority of the tribal, 
federal, state, and county governments.
    Frankly, what the government has done to us and our lands, 
has been nothing more than to create a mess. And this mess is 
compounded by the fact that these lands that we have retained 
are considered to be trust, that is lands owned by and under 
the jurisdiction of the Federal Government.
    In my view, the idea of trust land is not normal and should 
be fixed to recognize that our Nation is the owner of our lands 
within our treaty-defined reservations and subject to our 
primary jurisdiction. The Federal Government should be able to 
protect our lands against sale, external taxation, and 
regulation, not management or interference with our Tribal 
government's land use decisions.
    Perhaps the most glaring defect of land trust status is how 
it interferes with economic development activities that we wish 
to pursue to support our people.
    For example, in recent years, we have sought to expand a 
retail shopping plaza with a convenience store to support our 
Class III gaming facility. We acquired the land in fee from 
non-Indian sellers. And we had to apply to the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs to have the land taken into trust. That took 14 years, 
and it is still not done today.
    We had to undergo extensive environmental review because 
the land is now considered to be in trust status. The utility 
service takes us time to hook up because the Federal Government 
has regulations governing rights-of-way and trust lands. We 
started this project 22 years ago and it is still not finished. 
Nowhere in America, other than Indian Country, does this kind 
of bureaucratic stranglehold occur.
    To remedy this situation, I recommend that the Subcommittee 
considers acting on three different areas to improve the use of 
Tribal lands. First, Congress should enact legislation to allow 
for any Tribal Nation, at its own choosing, to acquire lands 
under the jurisdiction in restricted fee status. Restricted fee 
is a long-established form of tribal landownership similar to 
trust status, but the land is considered owned by the Indian 
Nation, not the Federal Government.
    The late Don Young, the former Dean of the House, supported 
tribal sovereignty for tribal governments to own their own land 
and exercise jurisdiction over them within our reservations. He 
developed legislation, the Native American Land Impairment Act, 
that he introduced in the 112th Congress and subsequent 
Congresses to allow for Indian Nations to acquire restricted 
fee lands within our existing reservations.
    He proposed a 90-day process that land acquired by the 
tribe in fee within the reservation would automatically be 
converted to restricted fee status under its ownership and 
jurisdiction. Enactment of this legislation would create an 
alternative process to the current fee-to-trust application. 
All Tribal Nations could save time, money, and strengthen our 
ability to engage in economic development within our 
reservations.
    Some tribes may not like the idea, but would prefer to have 
their lands held in trust. That is their right. But for these 
Nations that want greater control over our land use from the 
Federal Government, we should have the opportunity as well.
    Right now, Indian Nations are limited in our ability to 
lease our lands without Federal Government approval. And 
Congress took the step to enact the HEARTH Act which we have 
been using to our advantage. We should simply fix this 
situation by enacting legislation that allows any Indians that 
want the authority to lease the lands with a 99-year lease.
    And we want to thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for introducing 
that bill as well. At this time, I would like to thank you 
again, Madam Chairwoman, and the Subcommittee members, for this 
opportunity to testify today.
    For 50 years, the official policy of Congress has been to 
support tribal sovereignty and self-determination. More must be 
done to make this a reality, and I support tribal economic 
self-sufficiency. I am glad to take any questions that you may 
have. Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Rupnick follows:]
Prepared Statement of Joseph Rupnick, Chairman, Prairie Band Potawatomi 
                                 Nation
    Good morning, Chair Hageman, Ranking Member Leger-Fernandez, and 
distinguished members of the Subcommittee. My name is Joseph Rupnick 
and I serve as the Chairman of the Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation. I am 
a veteran of the United States Calvary and I represent approximately 
4,500 Potawatomi people most of whom live on our reservation in Kansas 
defined by our 1846 Treaty with the United States government.
    I am honored to be with you today to share my thoughts on 
``Unlocking Indian Country's Economic Potential,'' particularly as it 
relates to the ownership and use of tribal lands for economic 
development. Originally, our people owned and resided on lands in 
northern Illinois, but we were subject to removal treaties in 1829 and 
1833 that relinquished all but 1,280 acres of that land. Our 1846 
treaty established a 900 square mile reservation for us in Kansas, but 
development pressure, the federal government's land allotment policies 
and outright theft resulted in most of our land being lost to non-
Indians. Just a few decades ago, our Nation owned less than 5% of the 
land originally promised to us.
    Today, lands within our Reservation are heavily 
``checkerboarded''--meaning that there are mixed parcels of land within 
the Reservation owned by our Nation, individual Nation citizens, and 
non-Indians. And because the status of the land differs based on 
ownership, so too does the jurisdiction and taxing authority of the 
tribal, federal, state, and county governments. Frankly, what the 
government has done to us and our lands has been to create a mess.
    This mess is compounded by the fact that that the lands that we 
have retained are considered to be ``trust lands''--that, is--lands 
owned by and under the jurisdiction of the federal government. In my 
view, the idea of ``trust land'' is not normal and should be fixed to 
recognize that our Nation is the owner of our lands within our treaty-
defined reservations and subject to our primary jurisdiction. The 
federal government's role should be to protect our lands against sale 
and external taxation and regulation, not management and interference 
with our tribal government's land use decisions.
    Perhaps the most glaring defect of trust land status is how it 
interferes with economic development activities that we wish to pursue 
to support our people. For example, in recent years we have sought to 
expand a retail shopping plaza with a convenience store to support our 
Class III gaming facility. We acquired the land in fee from non-Indian 
sellers. We had to apply to the Bureau of Indian Affairs to have the 
land taken into trust, which took 14 years. We had to undergo excessive 
environmental review because of the land is now considered to be in 
trust status. The utility service takes time to hook up because of the 
federal regulations governing rights of way on trust land. We started 
this project 22 years ago and it is still not finished. Nowhere in 
America other than Indian Country does this kind of bureaucratic 
stranglehold occur.

    To remedy this situation, I recommend that the Subcommittee 
consider acting in three different areas to improve use of tribal 
lands.

    First, the Congress should enact legislation to allow for any 
Indian nation at its own choosing to acquire lands under its 
jurisdiction in restricted fee status. Restricted fee status is a long-
established form of tribal landownership similar to trust status, but 
the land is considered owned by the Indian nation not the federal 
government.
    The late Don Young, the former Dean of the House, supported tribal 
sovereignty for tribal governments to own our own lands and exercise 
jurisdiction over them within our reservations. He developed 
legislation--the ``Native American Land Empowerment Act''--that he 
introduced in the 112th and subsequent Congresses to allow for Indian 
nations to acquire restricted fee lands within our existing 
reservations. He proposed a 90-day process that land acquired by a 
tribe in fee within its reservation would automatically be converted to 
restrict fee status under its ownership and jurisdiction.
    Enactment of this legislation would create an alternative process 
to the current fee-to-trust process. All tribal nations could save 
time, money, and strengthen our ability to engage in economic 
development within our reservations if we had this tool at our 
disposal. Some tribes may not like the idea and would prefer to have 
their lands held in trust. That is their right. But for those nations 
that want greater control over our land use from the federal 
government, we should have that opportunity as well.

    In addition, I would like to suggest two other important changes to 
expand tribal government authority over our own lands.

    Right now, Indian nations are limited in our ability to lease our 
lands without federal approval. In 2012, the Congress took a major step 
forward when it enacted the HEARTH Act to amend the Indian Long-Term 
Leasing Act of 1955 (25 USC 415) to allow for the leasing of trust or 
restricted lands of up to 75 years. But, to regain that inherent 
authority, a tribe must first ask permission and secure approval from 
the federal government to exercise that authority. And to get that 
approval, a tribe's laws must have a variety of restrictions and 
controls governing land use that are nearly as burdensome as the 
federal government's own regulations.
    In true fashion, the federal government acted in a manner that 
looks like it is respecting tribal sovereignty but loads up the process 
with so many other restrictions that you have to wonder whether it's 
really worth it.
    The Congress should simply fix this situation by enacting 
legislation that allows any Indian that wants the authority to lease 
its trust lands for 99-years to do so. Again, if a tribe wants to 
utilize the existing legal regime, that is their choice. But if other 
tribes like ours want a streamlined process, the federal government 
should just get out of the way.
    Lastly, Congress should amend the Nonintercourse Act to clarify 
that it does not apply to the purchase and sale of fee lands. This Act, 
one of the first pieces of legislation enacted by the Congress in 1790, 
serves an important function to protect the sale and alienation of 
Indian lands. But it should not apply to land transactions involving 
the purchase and sale of fee lands. Many tribal governments, including 
ours, are interested in expanding our economic opportunities into real 
estate development, but any future sale could be stopped because of a 
restrictive interpretation of the Nonintercourse Act.

    In conclusion, I want to thank you again Madam Chair and 
Subcommittee members for the opportunity to testify today. For 50 
years, the official policy of the Congress has been to support tribal 
sovereignty and self-determination. More must be done to make this a 
reality to support tribal economic self-sufficiency.

    I am glad to take any questions that you may have.

                                 ______
                                 

 Questions Submitted for the Record to Hon. Joseph Rupnick, Chairman, 
                     Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation
            Questions Submitted by Representative Westerman
    Question 1. Please further expand on your testimony and highlight 
further examples of where your tribal government has been able to 
successfully utilize tribal lands for economic benefit.

    Answer. Our Nation's primary economic activity and source of 
government revenue is our Class II and Class III gaming facilities. To 
the extent that these facilities are located on our Reservation trust 
lands, it can be said that that we have successfully utilized our 
tribal lands for economic benefit. However, the primary reason for our 
economic success in this area is due to our favorable market location, 
our regulatory advantage, and the stability of the federal regulatory 
framework.
    In addition, we have established two convenience store businesses 
for the retail sale of motor fuel and tobacco products under our state 
tax compact. However, beyond these ventures, our lands have not 
generated much government revenue at all.
    We have established a diversified holding company--Prairie Band 
LLC--that operates several subsidiaries focused on 8(a) contracting and 
other off-territory investments. Only our convenience store and golf 
course operations have a component related to operation on our trust 
lands. We have also established a hemp farm and a bison ranch, but 
neither of these enterprises have generated a profit currently.
    As reiterated from my testimony, one primary reason why there has 
not been more development of our land is because it is heavily 
``checkerboarded''. Agricultural and grazing use is limited because no 
one landowner--including the Nation itself--owns enough land to 
establish a commercially viable business.
    If the Nation were to have the benefit of the tools outlined in my 
written testimony--restricted fee land, extended leasing authority, and 
liberty to buy and sell fee lands--I believe that the Nation could 
achieve more economic success.

    Question 2. Is there any further information you think the 
Committee needs to make good policy regarding land use restrictions for 
tribal lands?

    Answer. In addition to the recommendations contained in my written 
testimony, there are other changes in federal law and regulation that 
must occur before Tribal nations can be more self-sufficient.
    First, Congress needs to address the race-based taxation imposed on 
non-Indians doing business on Tribal lands. In 1989, the U.S. Supreme 
Court authorized state and local governments to tax non-Indian economic 
activity occurring on Tribal lands. See Cotton Petroleum v. New Mexico, 
490 U.S. 163 (1989). Congress never authorized this activity and it has 
served to cripple the ability of Tribal nations to pursue economic 
activities within our reservations. This case followed the decision in 
Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe, 455 U.S. 130 (1982) which upheld the 
ability of Tribal governments to impose taxes on non-Indian economic 
activity. The clash of these two lines of cases is to create a 
situation of ``dual taxation'' that inhibits non-Indian investment 
within our nations. It is intolerable and as long as this situation is 
allowed to exist, Tribal economies will never truly be free to generate 
economic self-sufficiency.
    Second, Federal regulations in other areas unrelated to lands 
should be reformed to support Tribal economic growth. In 2000, the 
Congress directed the Commerce Department to establish a ``Regulatory 
Reform and Business Development on Indian Lands Authority'' to 
``facilitate the identification and subsequent removal of obstacles to 
investment, business development, and the creation of wealth'' within 
Tribal nations. See Pub. L. 106-447, 114 Stat. 1936, Nov. 6, 2000. This 
law was never implemented.

    The Findings set forth in this law are as relevant as ever and 
should be addressed without further delay:

``Congress finds that----

  (1)   despite the availability of abundant natural resources on 
            Indian lands and a rich cultural legacy that accords great 
            value to self-determination, self-reliance, and 
            independence, Native Americans suffer rates of 
            unemployment, poverty, poor health, substandard housing, 
            and associated social ills which are greater than the rates 
            for any other group in the United States;

  (2)   the capacity of Indian tribes to build strong Indian tribal 
            governments and vigorous economies is hindered by the 
            inability of Indian tribes to engage communities that 
            surround Indian lands and outside investors in economic 
            activities conducted on Indian lands;

  (3)   beginning in 1970, with the issuance by the Nixon 
            Administration of a special message to Congress on Indian 
            Affairs, each President has reaffirmed the special 
            government-to-government relationship between Indian tribes 
            and the United States; and

  (4)   the United States has an obligation to assist Indian tribes 
            with the creation of appropriate economic and political 
            conditions with respect to Indian lands to----

          (A)  encourage investment from outside sources that do not 
        originate with the Indian tribes; and

          (B)  facilitate economic development on Indian lands.

Conclusion. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to 
contact me.
                                 ______
                                 
    Ms. Hageman. Thank you very much. And your entire statement 
is in the record. Thank you for your testimony.
    And the Chair now recognizes the Honorable Wavalene 
Saunders for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF WAVALENE SAUNDERS, VICE CHAIRWOMAN, TOHONO O'ODHAM 
                NATION FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA

    Ms. Saunders. (Speaks Native language.) Good day. My name 
is Wavalene Saunders. I am the Tohono O'odham Nation Vice 
Chairwoman. Good morning Chair Hageman, Ranking Member Leger 
Fernandez, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee.
    The Nation is a federally recognized tribe with more than 
34,000 members. Our reservation is one of the largest in the 
United States, roughly the size of Connecticut. The Nation 
appreciates the Subcommittee's focus on economic development, 
as this is an issue critically important to the Tohono O'odham 
Nation.
    We are particularly concerned about how inadequate and 
outdated infrastructure thwarts the development of healthy, 
diverse tribal economies, including the impact it has on our 
small business owners. So, we appreciate this opportunity to 
testify.
    First, more serious Federal investment in the repair and 
maintenance of BIA roads is very, very critical on the Tohono 
O'odham Nation, as I am sure it is throughout Indian Country. 
Reservation-based businesses must be given the opportunity to 
get their products and their customers to market.
    The remoteness of our reservation and the extremely poor 
conditions of our roads are significant barriers for both 
Tribal members and internal partners who otherwise want to 
develop businesses in our communities. Chronic underfunding of 
the BIA Road Maintenance program leaves our roads severely 
compromised by sinkholes, potholes, broken and cracked 
pavement, and washed-out bridges. These roads are dangerous for 
our members as well as our visitors.
    During monsoon seasons, flooding completely washes out our 
roads and makes them impassible. According to a December 2018 
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights report, deficiencies in 
transportation system infrastructure in Indian Country 
diminishes opportunities for development, which further impairs 
the ability of tribal communities to thrive.
    Second, we need better utility infrastructure. Rural 
communities such as ours in Indian Country suffer from profound 
deficiencies in the availability of basic utilities to provide 
adequate drinking water, sanitation, and electricity to a 
majority of our communities.
    On the Nation, utility hookup is extremely expensive, 
creating serious barriers to the development of new businesses. 
Lack of utility access impacts not just the operation of a new 
business but also its potential workforce. More than 12 percent 
of tribal homes lack access to safe drinking water and basic 
sanitation which is a rate more than 20 times higher than the 
national average.
    This fundamental deficiency in the quality of life 
undermines the availability and retention of a ready workforce 
and poses a significant barrier to creating reservation-based 
economic and employment opportunities.
    I also want to underscore the importance of 
telecommunication and Internet access. Lack of access to 
broadband inhibits our ability to spur economic development and 
to train a technically skilled workforce as well as continuing 
education for all of our students in schools within the 
boundaries of the Tohono O'odham Nation.
    The state of Arizona found that 95 percent of people living 
on tribal lands either have unserved or underserved 
telecommunication access. The Nation appreciates Congress' 
recent attention to these issues, but continued efforts and 
funding are absolutely critical.
    Our citizens are challenged by difficulty in securing 
capital to develop businesses on trust lands, inadequate access 
to banking services generally, and inadequate access to 
business and technical training. The Nation would like to see 
greater investment in helping potential small business owners 
start and grow their own.
    Lastly, review and approval by BIA is required for a host 
of infrastructure and other development on Indian lands. The 
challenges we face as the Tohono O'odham Nation illustrate the 
dismal condition of physical infrastructure in rural Indian 
Country and the importance of investment in our communities. We 
welcome the opportunity to work with the Committee to find ways 
to address the challenges. And we thank you for your time in 
addressing all of our concerns on behalf of the Tohono O'odham 
Nation in Indian Country.
    Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Saunders follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Wavalene Saunders, Vice Chairwoman, 
                  the Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona
    Thank you Chair Hageman, Ranking Member Leger Fernandez, and 
distinguished members of the Subcommittee for this opportunity to 
provide the Tohono O'odham Nation's (Nation's) testimony. My name is 
Wavalene Saunders, and I am the elected Vice Chairwoman of the Nation. 
The Nation is a federally recognized tribe with more than 34,000 
members. Our Reservation is one of the largest in the United States, 
roughly the size of the State of Connecticut, with the bulk of being 
rural and remote. This rural, remote character of the Nation's 
Reservation, and our lack of access to fully developed infrastructure, 
presents very significant challenges to economic development and job 
creation on our lands. For this reason, the Nation sincerely 
appreciates the Subcommittee's focus on questions related to the 
opportunities and challenges for economic development in Indian 
Country. Following below we have identified several areas in which 
inadequate and outdated infrastructure materially obstructs the 
Nation's ability to develop a healthy, diverse tribal economy and 
generate a varied employment base.
Roads and Transportation

    It is hard to underscore strongly enough how significant an issue 
this is for rural tribal communities. There is no way around the fact 
that a tribe needs a strong infrastructure foundation in order to be 
able to develop a strong economic base. Reservation-based businesses 
must be given the opportunity to get their products--and their 
customers--to the market. Where a tribe's transportation system and 
general infrastructure are not adequate, entrepreneurs are discouraged 
from developing businesses and those that do have a difficult time 
succeeding. For the Tohono O'odham Nation and other rural tribal 
communities, the remoteness of our Reservation and the extremely poor 
condition of our roads are significant factors preventing both tribal 
members and external business partners from developing businesses in 
our communities. We are particularly concerned about the impact on the 
development of small businesses, which are a priority for the Nation. 
We feel strongly that only when the transportation infrastructure 
problem is addressed can tribal communities begin to establish a 
healthy economic base that will support small tribal member-owned 
businesses and provide meaningful employment opportunities for tribal 
members.
    Using the Nation's Reservation as an example, we have hundreds of 
miles of severely damaged roads, including 734.8 miles of BIA-managed 
roads. Due to the lack of funding for the Bureau of Indian Affairs' 
(BIA's) Road Maintenance Program, many of our roads are severely 
compromised by sink holes, pot holes, broken and cracked pavement, and 
washed-out bridges, making them dangerous for our members and visitors 
alike. During monsoon season, flooding completely washes out roads and 
makes them impassable, stranding our members, and isolating 
communities. These conditions present a real impediment to attracting 
business and stimulating the Reservation economy. According to the 
December 2018 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights report evaluating the 
budgets and spending of federal agencies that administer Native 
programs, deficiencies in transportation system infrastructure in 
Indian Country diminishes opportunities for development, which further 
impairs the ability of tribal communities to thrive. The most recent 
data of which we are aware confirms that BIA's Road Maintenance Program 
deferred maintenance backlog is still very significant, in Fiscal Year 
(FY) 2018 it totaled $498 million and it continues to rise.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ NCAI FY 2022 Budget Request at 131-132, available at https://
www.ncai.org/resources/ncai-publications/
NCAI_IndianCountry_FY2022_BudgetRequest.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Housing and Utilities (Water, Sewer, and Electricity)

    Similar to the transportation infrastructure deficiencies, rural 
Indian Country suffers from profound deficits in the availability of 
basic utilities to provide adequate drinking water, sanitation, and 
electricity. On the Nation, utility hookup in rural communities is 
extremely expensive, creating an often insurmountable barrier to the 
construction of the buildings from which economic development can take 
place. This impacts not just a potential business's operation, but also 
its potential workforce. More than 12 percent of tribal homes lack 
access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation, which is a rate 
more than 20 times higher than the national average.\2\ This 
fundamental deficit in the quality of life undermines the availability 
and retention of a ready workforce, and also poses a significant 
barrier to creating Reservation-based economic and employment 
opportunities. Similarly, without an adequate housing base for tribal 
employees, it is nearly impossible to address staffing issues and 
shortages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ NCAI FY 2022 Budget Request at 131-132, available at https://
www.ncai.org/resources/ncai-publications/
NCAI_IndianCountry_FY2022_BudgetRequest.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Telecommunications and Internet Access

    Lack of broadband access inhibits our ability to spur economic and 
business development, and train a technically skilled workforce for 
21st-century jobs. According to the U.S. Census Bureau Community Survey 
Report (Sept. 2017), the Tohono O'odham Nation (TON) is facing a 
``digital divide'' compared to nearby communities, with a large 
proportion of residents lacking any access to broadband internet. The 
State of Arizona's 2018 Broadband Strategic Plan found that ``162,382 
people living on tribal lands (95 percent) have either unserved or 
underserved telecommunication infrastructure needs. They do not have 
access to fixed advanced telecommunications capabilities, and often 
resort to local ``community anchor institutions'' (libraries, schools 
and such) for their only connection to the rest of the digital world.'' 
\3\ (Emphasis added.) The Nation appreciates Congress' recent attention 
to these telecommunications, internet, and broadband issues, and urges 
that continued efforts in this area are critical.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Arizona Statewide Broadband Strategic Plan at 16, available at 
https://azlibrary.gov/sites/default/files/
erate_2018_az_broadbandstrategicplan_final.PDF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Business Development and Support

    The Nation is particularly concerned about lack of support for 
small businesses. We underscore the importance of empowering tribal 
members to develop businesses to strengthen our local economy and 
provide locally-sourced employment to tribal members. Not only do our 
potential entrepreneurs suffer from the infrastructure deficits 
described above, they are held back by lack of access to capital and 
affordable financial products and banking services and lack of access 
to business and legal advice. We would like to see more attention paid 
to the difficulties that are specific to on-reservation business 
development, such as the difficulties attendant to securing debt for 
activities on trust lands and lack of investment overall in tribal 
member-owned businesses. Further, the workforce available to tribal-
member-owned businesses often lacks the technical and financial 
training needed by these potential employers. Investment in work 
training programs for employees inherently helps to promote and 
stabilize tribal member small businesses.
    In sum, the Nation would like to see a greater emphasis and 
investment in helping potential small business owners get their 
businesses up and running, with an equal emphasis on getting them the 
capital support, business training, and employee retention support they 
need to successfully grow those businesses.
Bureau of Indian Affairs Review Processes

    Review and approval by BIA is required for a host of infrastructure 
development on Indian lands. While these approvals are meant to be 
protective of tribes, in reality the length of time it takes to 
navigate those processes and obtain those approvals can create 
significant barriers to investment and economic development in Indian 
Country. For example, according to the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO), BIA's lengthy processes for review of land use 
instruments like easements, rights-of-way agreements, and valuations 
have hindered tribes from pursuing energy resource development 
opportunities that could provide significant benefits to tribes and 
their members.\4\ Further, leases of tribal trust land requiring BIA 
approval triggers the need to comply with the requirements of the 
National Environmental Policy Act, which can be very expensive and the 
costs are born by the tribe. Additionally, establishing related 
easements or rights of way also require compliance with BIA 
regulations. While BIA revised its leasing and right-of-way regulations 
within the last ten years to make them less cumbersome, to include 
specific leasing provisions for wind and solar leases, and to include 
deadlines for BIA approval, those deadlines lack effective enforcement 
mechanisms and the BIA approval process is still lengthy. GAO recently 
recommended that BIA develop a process to monitor and assess agency 
review and response times to help ensure that BIA's process and review 
is more transparent and efficient, and to ensure that it is not 
unnecessarily hindering tribes' economic development opportunities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ U.S. Government Accountability Office Priority Open 
Recommendations: Department of Interior (June 2, 2022) at 2, 7, 
available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-105603.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We note that while Congress has worked to address this issue with 
the enactment of the Helping Expedite and Advance Responsible Tribal 
Home Ownership (HEARTH) Act, which allows tribal governments to enact 
their own leasing regulations for tribal trust lands, the BIA approval 
process for the HEARTH Act ordinance itself can be fairly lengthy and 
delay tribal economic development efforts. And, regardless of whether a 
Tribe has an approved HEARTH Act leasing ordinance, roads and other 
access agreements needed for development may still require approval 
under BIA's right-of-way regulations, which again results in BIA 
approval delays.
    In sum, BIA's lengthy review processes can have negative effects on 
tribal economic development in a host of areas where leases, rights of 
way, and appraisals on tribal trust lands are needed. Potential 
development partners often are unwilling to wait for what seem like 
never-ending delays in the BIA regulatory approval process, including 
paying for NEPA reviews because BIA does not have funding to complete 
them.
Conclusion

    The profound infrastructure challenges we face at the Tohono 
O'odham Nation illustrate the dismal condition of physical 
infrastructure in rural Indian Country generally, and the critical 
importance of investment in basic utilities and broadband to seed 
economic prosperity in tribal communities. We also underscore the need 
for greater focus and investment on tribal member small business 
owners. We welcome the opportunity to work with the Committee to find 
ways to lessen these challenges and to promote economic development in 
Indian Country.

    Thank you for your time today. I am happy to answer any questions.

                                 ______
                                 
     Questions Submitted for the Record to Wavalene Saunders, Vice 
                   Chairwoman, Tohono O'odham Nation

Ms. Saunders did not submit responses to the Committee by the 
appropriate deadline for inclusion in the printed record.

             Questions Submitted by Representative Grijalva
    Question 1. Could you share a few examples of how the Nation's 
economic development projects have supported your tribal community?

    1a) Additionally, can you share how the Nation's business ventures 
have supported the broader Arizona economy?

    Question 2. Thank you for sharing the Nation's small business 
concerns in your testimony.

    2a) Can you elaborate on the federal work training programs that 
you would like to see created?

    Question 3. Your testimony highlights the importance of adequate 
transportation systems. We included funding in the Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act for BIA road maintenance and construction.

    3a) Can you speak to the importance of receiving full funding for 
BIA's Road Maintenance Program in relation to economic growth?

                                 ______
                                 

    Ms. Hageman. I thank the witness for your testimony.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Jason Robison for 5 minutes.

  STATEMENT OF JASON ROBISON, LAND AND RESOURCES OFFICER, COW 
CREEK BAND OF UMPQUA TRIBE OF INDIANS, FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

    Mr. Robison. Good morning, Chair Hageman, Ranking Member 
Leger Fernandez, and members of the Subcommittee. My name is 
Jason Robison. I am the Land and Resources Officer for the Cow 
Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians. On behalf of Tribal 
Chair Carla Keene, and Vice Chair Gary Jackson, I want to thank 
you for this opportunity to testify today regarding Unlocking 
Indian Country's Economic Potential.
    I want to first commend the efforts of this Subcommittee, 
the Administration, and tribal leaders across the country for 
seeking innovative approaches to promoting tribal self-
governance, and providing more opportunities to tribes to 
manage tribal lands and resources according to tribal values, 
goals, and objectives. It is a goal we all share, and the Tribe 
welcomes this opportunity to participate in discussions which 
could help shape new opportunities for tribes throughout the 
country.
    Cow Creek is one of nine federally recognized tribes in the 
state of Oregon. Our Tribe has just over 1,900 tribal members. 
And Cow Creek has a rich history in southern Oregon that 
reflects its hard work, perseverance, and desire to be self-
reliant.
    Cow Creek owns and manages approximately 30,000 acres of 
land within Oregon, comprised of approximately 15,000 acres of 
fee land, 23,000 acres of trust, and approximately 30,000 acres 
are forest lands managed throughout the social, ecological, and 
economic goals and objectives laid out in the Tribe's approved 
forest management plan.
    The Tribe is the second largest employer in Douglas County, 
employing approximately 1,000 tribal and non-tribal people. The 
Umpqua Indian Development Corporation is the Tribe's primary 
economic development engine. UIDC businesses and tribal 
resource management provide much of the needed revenues for 
tribal government operations which provides social services, 
housing, education, health care, and elders care to the 
membership.
    The Tribe is a strong advocate for Indian self-
determination and self-governance. We operate our governmental 
programs under a self-governance compact approved by the Tribe 
and the Secretary of the Interior.
    Under the compact, the Tribe has been able to redesign 
programs and carry out activities under tribal policies and 
procedures rather than burdensome processes contained in 
Federal manuals and handbooks. This has allowed more efficient 
operations which better serves the interests of our Tribal 
membership and our environment.
    On June 1, 2018, the President signed the Oregon Tribal 
Economic Development Act which clarified that transactions 
involving land owned in fee by Cow Creek and other Oregon 
tribes were not subject to the Non-Intercourse Act.
    The Oregon Tribal Economic Development Act makes it crystal 
clear that Cow Creek may sell or otherwise develop its fee 
lands free from Federal interference, improving its ability to 
create economic opportunities while protecting the environment 
at or above Federal environmental standards.
    In 2010, Congress passed a bill to amend the Act of August 
9, 1955, to also authorize the Cow Creek and other tribes in 
Oregon to obtain 99-year lease authority. This lease authority 
has provided the Tribe with an opportunity to package longer-
term business arrangements on tribal land.
    The HEARTH Act of 2012 has also provided opportunities for 
expanded lease authorities on tribal lands, in addition to 
allowing the Tribe to develop its own regulations and policies 
approved by the Secretary of the Interior.
    These types of authorities and actions provide tribes with 
the ability to conduct business in a more competitive and 
attractive environment. They also create certainty for tribes 
which is a must if we are to eventually achieve self-
determination and self-governance. Without these types of 
authorities and actions, tribes are being punished and held at 
a substantial disadvantage.
    Restricted fee title is one classification of Indian lands. 
However, very few tribes have the opportunity to use this 
status to their advantage. We recommend this Committee pursue 
opportunities to expand this land use designation across Indian 
Country.
    The Cow Creek were one of the first tribes in the country 
to enter into a demonstration project established under Section 
II of the Indian Trust Asset Reform Act, ITARA. Under the ITARA 
demonstration project, the Tribe prepared an Indian Trust Asset 
Management Plan, or an ITAMP, for forest management. The 
approved ITAMP allows the Tribe to perform forest management 
activities under tribal law and tribal forestry regulations 
rather than Federal rules.
    Numerous forest management actions which previously 
required Federal agency approval, and could take a year or more 
to implement, are now approved solely by the Tribe and 
implemented in a manner of a few months or less while still 
meeting applicable Federal law.
    ITARA has allowed advancement along a pathway to achieve 
the Tribe's vision of the forest. This is another example of 
our success in strengthening tribal sovereignty. We would like 
to see this authority become permanent.
    The Tribe has also taken steps to utilize authorities under 
the Tribal Forest Protection Act, the Agricultural Improvement 
Act, to develop co-management agreements with adjacent Federal 
land managers.
    These authorities and agreements add to the list of tools 
that have been made available to tribes for managing and 
protecting tribal members and tribal resources. We request this 
Committee assess new authorities that complement or expand 
these types of opportunities to tribes.
    It is our hope that we can continue to work together across 
Indian Country on a bipartisan basis to fix lingering 
legislative issues like the Non-Intercourse Act, 99-year lease 
authority, the use of restricted fee status, and others in 
order to provide all of Indian Country the same opportunity.
    It is also our hope that by working together, we promote 
new legislation that empowers tribal governments, increases 
business opportunities for tribes, promotes tribal sovereignty 
and self-governance, and reduces the cost of administrative 
burdens of Federal oversight on all designations of tribal 
land.
    We recommend that the Subcommittee look into legislation 
like the HEARTH Act and the Indian Trust Asset Reform Act as 
good examples of what works well in Indian Country.
    In closing, I would like to thank you for the time and 
opportunity to present testimony today regarding Unlocking 
Indian Country's Economic Potential. Cow Creek is at the 
forefront of many of these new laws. And we would welcome the 
opportunity to work with this committee and to you to draft new 
legislation. Again, thank you, and I would be happy to answer 
any questions.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Robison follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jason A. Robison, Land and Resources Officer, Cow 
                 Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians
I. Introduction

    Good Morning, Chair, Ranking Member, and members of the 
subcommittee. My name is Jason Robison, I am the Lands and Resources 
Officer for the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians (Tribe). On 
behalf of Tribal Chairman Carla Keene, and Vice Chair Gary Jackson, I 
want to thank you for the opportunity to testify today regarding 
unlocking Indian country's economic potential.
    I want to first commend the efforts by this subcommittee, the 
administration, and Tribal leaders across the country for seeking 
innovative approaches to promoting Tribal self-governance, and 
providing more opportunities to Tribes to manage tribal lands and 
resources according to Tribal values, goals, and objectives. It is a 
goal we all share and the Tribe welcomes this opportunity to 
participate in discussions which could help shape new opportunities for 
Tribes throughout the country.
II. Background

    Cow Creek is one of nine federally recognized Tribes in the State 
of Oregon. The Tribes has just over 1900 tribal members, and it's 
governed by an elected eleven-member council known as the Tribal Board 
of Directors. Cow Creek has a rich history in southern Oregon that 
reflects hard work, perseverance and the desire to be self-reliant.
    Cow Creek owns and manages approximately 38,000 acres of land 
within Oregon, comprised of approximately 15,000 acres of fee land and 
23,000 acres of trust land. Approximately 30,000 acres are managed for 
timber production and other important cultural, and forest values. In 
January 2018, the Western Oregon Tribal Fairness Act (WOTFA) conveyed 
approximately 17,800 acres of forest land previously managed by the 
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to the Tribe to fulfill their promise 
of a reservation.
    The Tribe is the second largest employer in Douglas County, 
employing approximately 1,000 tribal and non-tribal people. The Umpqua 
Indian Development Corporation (UIDC) is the Tribe's primary economic 
development engine. Under its auspices, the Tribe operates several 
businesses for the benefit of tribal members, local residents, and the 
surrounding community. These businesses provide much needed revenues 
for Tribal government operations that support the following services: 
social services, housing, education, health care, and elders care. 
These business also help fund resource management activities.
III. Self Determination

    The Tribe is a strong advocate for Indian self-determination and 
self-governance. We operate our governmental programs under a self-
governance compact approved by the Tribe and Secretary of the Interior. 
Under the compact, the Tribe has been able to redesign programs and 
carryout activities under tribal policies and procedures rather than 
burdensome processes contained in federal manuals and handbooks. This 
has allowed more efficient operations which better serve the interests 
of our tribal membership and our environment.
IV. Non-Intercourse Act, Leasing Authority, and the Hearth Act

    On June 1, 2018, the President signed the Oregon Tribal Economic 
Development Act, Pub.L. 115-179, which clarified that transactions 
involving land owned in fee by Cow Creek and other Oregon Tribes were 
not subject to the Non-Intercourse Act, 25 U.S.C. Sec. 177, which 
generally prohibits tribal conveyances of tribal trust land without 
congressional approval. While the Non-Intercourse Act does not apply to 
fee lands, individuals without a solid understanding of Indian law 
sometimes apply it to fee lands, limiting a tribe's ability to use real 
estate for economic development purposes. In these situations, Congress 
must step in to clarify that lands may be sold. The Oregon Tribal 
Economic Development Act makes it crystal clear that Cow Creek may sell 
or otherwise develop its fee lands free from federal interference, 
improving its ability to create economic opportunities while protecting 
the environment at or above Federal environmental standards.
    In 2010, Congress passed a bill to amend the Act of August 9, 1955, 
to authorize the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Indians of Oregon, the 
Coquille Tribe of Oregon, and the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz 
Reservation, Oregon, to obtain 99-year lease authority for trust land.
    Ninety-nine year lease authority has provided the Tribe with the 
opportunity to package longer-term business arrangements on Tribal 
lands. Additionally, the HEARTH Act has also provided opportunities for 
expanded lease authorities on Tribal lands in addition to allowing the 
Tribe to develop its own regulations and policies approved by the 
Secretary of the Interior. These policies will help streamline future 
business leasing opportunities for the Tribe. It also creates certainty 
for Tribes which is a must, if we are to eventually achieve self-
determination and self-governance.
    These types of authorities and actions provide Tribes with the 
ability to conduct business in a more competitive and attractive 
environment. Without these types of authorities and actions Tribes are 
being punished and held at a substantial disadvantage.
V. Potential benefits of Restricted Fee Land

    Restricted fee title is one classification of Indian lands; 
however, very few tribes have the opportunity to use this status to 
their advantage. We recommend this committee pursue opportunities to 
expand the use of this land designation across Indian country by 
creating an administrative process for this land designation. This 
could significantly reduce barriers to Tribal business development on 
fee lands while allowing the Tribe to hold title to the land and 
protect the land against alienation.
VI. Land Management/ITARA Demonstration Project

    The Cow Creek were one of the first tribes in the country to enter 
into the Demonstration Project established under Section II of the 
Indian Trust Asset Reform Act (ITARA). This act, which passed Congress 
and was signed into law in June 2016, allows Tribes to take another 
step in self-determination in management of their Tribal trust 
forestlands. Under the ITARA Demonstration Project, the Tribe prepared 
an Indian Trust Asset Management Plan (ITAMP) for forest management.
    The ITAMP was approved by the Secretary of the Interior in December 
2018. Under the approved ITAMP, the Tribe performs forest management 
activities under Tribal law and Tribal forestry regulations rather than 
the federal rules contained in 25 CRFR Part 163. Numerous forest 
management actions which previously required federal agency approval 
and could take a year or more to implement are now approved solely by 
the Tribe and implemented in a matter of a few months or less while 
still meeting Federal standards.
    Our forest management under ITARA has been a resounding success 
resulting in a high level of sustainable timber production generating 
revenue to the Tribe for its governmental programs and providing jobs 
to local and state industries, as well as log supply to the local 
timber industry. The streamlined processes accomplished under tribal 
authority have also resulted in implementation of actions to reduce 
wildfire risk, improve forest health and enhance cultural values of our 
Tribal forestlands. Rather than federal control, ITARA has allowed 
advancement along a pathway to achieve the Tribal vision for our 
forest. This is another example of our success in strengthening tribal 
sovereignty. We would like to see this authority become permanent.
    The Tribe has also taken steps to utilize authorities under the 
Tribal Forest Protection Act (TFPA), and the Agricultural Improvement 
Act (FARM BILL), to develop Co-management agreements with adjacent 
federal land managers. The Tribe was recognized during the White House 
Tribal Nations Summit has having one of the largest Tribal Forest 
Protection Act proposals, and the largest Forest Service self-
determination agreement to date. We are currently working to secure 
similar agreements with the Department of Interior, and the Oregon/
Washington BLM. These authorities and agreements add to the list of 
tools that have been made available to tribes for managing and 
protecting Tribal members and Tribal resources. We would request this 
subcommittee assess new authorities that compliment or expand these 
types of opportunities for Tribes.
VII. Fixing Long-term Issues in Indian Country and Promoting Self-
        governance

    It is our hope that we can continue to work together across Indian 
country to fix lingering legislative issues like the non-intercourse 
act , 99 year lease authority, the use of restrictive fee status, and 
others in order to provide all of Indian country the same 
opportunities. It also our hope that by working together we can promote 
new legislation that empowers Tribal governments; increases business 
opportunity for Tribes; promotes Tribal sovereignty and self-
governance; and, reduces the costs and administrative burdens of 
federal oversight on all designations of Tribal lands (Fee, Restricted 
Fee, and Trust).
    We recommend that this sub-committee look to legislation like the 
HEARTH Act, and the Indian Trust Asset Reform Act as good examples of 
what works well in Indian Country.
VIII. Closing

    In closing, I would like to thank you for the time and opportunity 
to present testimony today regarding unlocking Indian country's 
economic potential because the Cow Creek Tribe is at the forefront of 
many of these new laws and would welcome the opportunity to work with 
this committee and you to draft new legislation. Again, thank you and I 
will be happy to answer any questions you may have.

                                 ______
                                 

Questions Submitted for the Record to Jason Robison, Land and Resources 
           Officer, Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians
            Questions Submitted by Representative Westerman
    Question 1. Please further expand on your testimony and highlight 
further examples of where your tribal government has been able to 
successfully utilize tribal lands/or economic benefit.

    Answer. Part of the Cow Creek Band ofUmpqua Tribe of Indian's 
(Tribe) mission is to provide for the long-term economic needs of the 
Tribe and its members through the economic development of Tribal lands. 
The Umpqua Indian Development Cooperation (UIDC) is a federally 
chartered corporation and the business division of the Tribe. The Tribe 
operates several businesses which create jobs and job training 
opportunities for tribal members and the communities in which they 
serve. Businesses include: Seven Feathers Casino and Resort; Seven 
Feather's Truck and Travel; Seven Feathers RV Resort; Creekside Inn; 
Anvil Northwest; Takelma Roasting Company; K-Bar Ranches; and, Seven 
Generations Farms. These businesses are mostly located on Tribal trust 
lands within the Tribe's restoration act area. The Tribe also manages 
more than 30,000 acres of forest lands, which provides revenue to the 
Tribe through the sale of forest products. Together, these business 
provided funding to support Tribal member services such as: social 
services, health care, elders care, housing, and education.

    The Tribe is currently evaluating larger scale leasing projects on 
Tribal lands utilizing its authority under the Helping Expedite and 
Advance Responsible Tribal Home Ownership Act of 2012 (HEARTH Act). The 
Tribe is also looking at ways to utilize its existing cooperative 
management agreements with the Umpqua National Forest, and new 
agreements with the Oregon/Washington Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 
to create new economic opportunities for the Tribe and local community 
by utilizing forest residuals from forest management projects.

    Question 2. Please further expand on your testimony of how your 
tribe complies with all Federal laws including those for environmental 
protections.

    Answer. The Tribe follows all federal laws of general applicability 
including but not limited to the Endangered Species Act (ESA), Clean 
Water Act (CWA), and Clean Air Act (CAA). The Tribe also follows the 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to the extent that it applies 
to federal decisions and actions on Tribal trust land.

    Congress has provided Indian Tribes with opportunities to enact 
environmental regulations that are tailored to the unique needs of the 
Tribal communities. For example, under the HEARTH Act, Tribes have the 
ability to develop Tribal leasing regulations which are submitted to 
and approved by the Secretary of the Interior (SOI). Once authorized, 
Tribes can negotiate and enter into surface leases under their approved 
HEARTH Act regulations without further approval from the Department of 
the Interior (DOI). The Tribe's HEARTH Act regulations were approved by 
the SOI. These regulations included a Tribal environmental review 
process that is consistent with applicable federal law. The Tribe's 
regulations layout the frame work for evaluating potential effects of 
any proposed leasing action while allowing opportunity for input.

    Cow Creek is one of two Tribe's in the country that has been 
accepted into the Indian Trust Asset Reform Act (ITARA) Demonstration 
Project. Under the authority provided by the ITARA statute, the Tribe 
prepared and the SOI approved an Indian Trust Asset Management Plan 
(ITAMP) which contains Tribal forestry regulations replacing the 25 CFR 
163 federal regulations. Under the Tribal forestry regulations, most 
all forestry actions (timber sales, timber permits, prescribed burn 
plans, forestry enterprise agreements, etc.) previously approved by the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), often with long delays, are now 
approved by the Tribal Chairman under Tribal law. The Tribe has 
developed a Tribal Environmental Review Report (TERR) process under its 
regulations to evaluate environmental impacts. In addition, the Tribe 
utilizes a take avoidance strategy under section 9 of the ESA to 
minimize the risk of take to species listed as threatened or 
endangered. This strategy includes an evaluation of biological and 
ecological data based on site specific conditions and surveys. Section 
7 of the ESA no longer applies to Tribal forest management since there 
is no federal decision. Section 9 of ESA is much simpler and avoids 
long delays (a year or longer) which often happens under Section 7 
consultation.

    The Tribe has built up its capacity to include a variety of 
resource specialists within the following areas: fisheries, wildlife, 
forestry, water and environmental, geographic information systems, and 
heritage/cultural). The Tribe has also developed additional internal 
process and procedures for reviewing and evaluating tribal projects to 
maintain compliance with all applicable federal and Tribal laws.

    2a) Are there areas of the compliance process that are burdensome 
or duplicative beyond what is needed?

    Answer. The standard federal process for compliance with federal 
environmental laws are often very burdensome and time consuming. The 
process often involves multiple federal agencies and multiple 
personnel. In many cases, the responsiveness of the federal agencies 
involved is lacking due to limited resources resulting in critical 
delays to Tribal projects. Furthermore, federal agency staff often lack 
local site-specific knowledge and experience with Tribal lands and 
activities.

    Carrying out Tribal activities w1der the HEARTH ACT and ITARA has 
enabled the Tribe to use streamlined processes which are more cost 
effective than following federal rules, manuals and handbooks. Further, 
implementation of projects under Tribal approval can be accomplished in 
a matter of weeks compared to a year of more under federal processes 
and approval.

    2b) If so, how could Congress improve that process for tribes?

    Answer. Congress should continue to look for ways to streamline the 
federal environmental review process for Tribes by incorporating 
language in future legislation that allows Tribal governments to 
develop and implement their own Tribal environmental compliance rules 
and regulations for economic development and other management 
activities on Tribal lands. The HEARTH ACT and ITARA are good examples 
of how this process can work better. Congress should expand on these 
authorities to allow tribe's more autonomy over all trust resources in 
order to promote tribal sovereignty and self-governance.

    Congress should also examine ways to utilize Tribal environmental 
review processes on federal lands in order to streamline process and 
procedures for co-management and co-stewardship projects. Much like 
adopting another agencies NEPA documents, Congress should allow federal 
agencies to adopt Tribal environmental review process and procedures 
for projects covered under Tribal Forest Protection Act (TFPA) 
agreements or other cooperative agreements. Congress should also look 
to Tribe's with appropriate environmental capacity to assist federal 
agencies with their environmental review and compliance process. This 
can be accomplished through the contracting of Tribal resources or by 
passing funds through the Tribe to procure additional third-party 
resources to perform this work. The 638 agreement works well for this 
type of work.

    Question 3. Please further expand on your testimony and highlight 
what can be done to reduce wildfire risk and increase forest resiliency 
when specifically working with adjacent partners, like improvements to 
the Good Neighbor program at USDA.

    Answer. In order to reduce wildlife risk and increase forest 
resiliency, federal agencies must have the ability to plan and 
implement preventive measures at a meaningful landscape scale. Federal 
agencies must also be provided the human resources and financial 
resources to be able to accomplish preventative forest management 
activities. Congress should examine ways to increase federal 
appropriations to fire-preparedness activities for Tribes and federal 
agencies.

    Project planning and environmental review process needs to be 
streamlined to allow for a more rapid response to climate change and 
other threats which have created conditions that support catastrophic 
wildfires. This can be accomplished by developing new Categorical 
Exclusions (CE), under NEPA, for fuels reduction projects and other 
forest management activities. CEs should not just be limited to linear 
fuels treatments. Agencies must be allowed to take holistic approach to 
managing the entire stand if they are to be successful at reducing 
wildfire risk. Fuels reduction should be broaden to include other stand 
management activities, and fuels reduction projects should be allowed 
across the landscape to create continuity regardless of land use 
allocation. In addition, the size of these projects should be 
meaningful enough to reduce wildfire risk at a watershed scale.

    Congress should direct federal agencies to re-evaluate forest 
management plans to reflect current day threats and conditions and 
incorporate tribal goals, values, and objectives. Existing plans are 
based on an outdated system of reserves which set limits on the federal 
government's ability to actively managed forest stands and habitat. 
These management plans often associate active management with negative 
impacts; however, lack of management has often led to a complete loss 
of the habitats and beneficial ecological conditions which these plans 
were initially set out to protect/reserve. There needs to be a better 
balance between protection and management of biological and ecological 
resources, and management of stand conditions which create overstocking 
and high fuel levels. In addition, due to conflicting resource values, 
agencies aren't able to implement larger landscape scale projects. 
Individual resource restrictions or limitations have resulted in very 
small scale projects which tend to be very vulnerable to wildfire. As a 
result of existing planning goals and objectives, and federal 
environmental protections, agency staff often focus on advocating for 
resource protections over the long-term health and vitality of the 
resources.

    The lack of federal land management has also resulted in a loss of 
infrastructure that has adversely impacted Tribal and rural 
communities. The lack of infrastructure has limited forest restoration 
work because it makes meaningful landscape restoration economically 
infeasible. Investment in infrastructure requires security and 
assurance of supply in order to have the confidence to recapture the 
large investments required to develop processing facilities. To address 
this issue, Congress should authorize tribes through TFPA contracts 
and/or other collaborative agreements, to enter into long-term 
agreements (20+ years) with the Forest Service and BLM to guarantee 
supply arrangements to anchor future infrastructure development. There 
is also a need to create new authorities for Tribal co-management and 
stewardship across the landscape or expand the use of the TFPA to 
include much larger landscapes.

    Local initial attack capacity on most federal lands is lacking and 
fire suppression resources are often limited during fires season. 
Congress should direct the Secretary of Agriculture to enter into 
contracts or cooperative protective agreements with a State(s), 
Tribe(s), and/or local fire protection districts or associations for 
conducting initial attack and wildfire suppression activities on 
federal lands that are nearby and adjacent to Tribal Forest or 
agricultural lands. Every attempt should be made to suppress wildfires 
as quickly as possible.

    Prescribed fire needs to be used as a tool to put fire back on the 
landscape to help manage forest fuels, promote forest health, and 
further reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire. Congress should 
provide authorities for Tribe's and Federal land management agencies to 
conduct prescribed burning demonstration projects across federal 
ownerships. Fire needs to be reintroduce and used frequently across the 
landscape.

    The Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018 (Farm Bill) included 
Tribes in the Good Neighbor Authority (GNA) but failed to provide for 
the same treatment of revenues received from the sale of timber or 
other forest products. Congress should fix this issue in the next farm 
bill to allow tribes to retain receipts under good neighbor. I have 
inserted some proposed legislative language below:

        Funds received from the sale of timber or other commercial 
        forest products by a Tribe under a good neighbor agreement 
        shall be retained and used by the Tribe--``(I) to carry out 
        authorized restoration services on Federal land under the good 
        neighbor agreement; and ``(II) if there are funds remaining 
        after carrying out subclause (I), to carry out authorized 
        restoration services on nearby or adjacent Federal land under 
        good neighbor agreements, 638 agreements, and/or other 
        applicable agreements.

    The Farm bill also provided authority for the Forest Service to 
utilize 638 agreements with Tribal governments to accomplish forest 
management activities under the TFPA. This has proven to be valuable 
tool for the Tribe's work with the Umpqua National Forest. The use of 
638 authority should be expanded beyond TFPA, and its use should be 
allowed within all USDA agencies in a manner similar to that of the 
DOI. All 638 agreements should be allowed up to 20 years for 
consistency with Good Neighbor and Stewardship agreements rather than 
the arbitrary five year administrative time limit.

    Tribal culture facilitates innovative and integrated forestry 
practices. As noted in the Indian Forest Management Assessment Team 
(IFMAT) Reports (I, II, and III), Indian forestry has the potential to 
provide models for sustainable forestry and resource management that 
can be applied on the federal forest estate. IFMAT IV is nearing 
completion and Congress should evaluate the findings and 
recommendations in this assessment to adopt new approaches to managing 
Indian forest lands and adjacent federal forest lands.

    Question 4. Is there any further information you think the 
Committee needs to make good policy regarding land use restrictions for 
tribal lands?

    Answer. Congress should develop procedures for Tribes to place fee 
land into restricted fee status to allow tribes the opportunity to 
manage tribal fee lands subject to tribal laws and regulations, and 
applicable federal laws and regulations rather than State laws.

    As more tribes pivot toward tribal self-governance and self-
determination, Congress should evaluate new opportunities and 
authorities for Tribes to assume more responsibility over Tribal lands 
and resources. Congress should also explore new authorities that expand 
the use of Co-management and Co-stewardship across federal lands.

    Congress should evaluate ways to streamline opportunities for 
tribes to lease, transfer, or purchase federal administrative 
facilities. The Tribe is currently working on a potential acquisition 
of the Tiller Ranger District Offices; however, the current 
administrative process may take 10 years or more to work through. 
Congress should amend Title V--Forest Service Facility Realignment and 
Enhancement Act to expand the size of transferable acreage up to 100 
acres; authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to transfer 
administrative facilities directly to Tribal governments; and, extend 
authorization authority for an additional 5-10 years.

                                 ______
                                 

    Ms. Hageman. I thank the witness for your testimony.
    The Chair will now recognize Members for 5 minutes for 
questions, and I will be going first.
    I am going to direct my first question to Mr. Dustin 
Klatush. You stated, and you mentioned in your statement, that 
your Tribe felt fortunate to have been able to secure enactment 
of a bill in the 117th Congress to allow the Tribe to enter 
into leases up to 99 years. Was time of the essence in getting 
that bill passed, and why did the Tribe need to get it done 
during the last Congress?
    Mr. Klatush. First and foremost, we wanted to keep the 
interest of the two outside entities that had approached us 
about warehouse projects. The more time that passed, the more 
likely that outside businesses will lose interest or look 
elsewhere.
    Also, we wanted to keep the option open to begin 
construction during the construction season in our area which 
is April to October.
    Ms. Hageman. Wonderful. Thank you for that. I would like to 
also question Mr. Rupnick. You testified in favor of 
establishing a new process for acquiring lands under tribal 
jurisdiction in restricted fee status. Do you believe that 
restricted fee land status would be more efficient for the 
Federal Government as well as for the tribal governments?
    Mr. Rupnick. Yes. I do. And part of that is that tribes can 
assume jurisdiction over those lands immediately, and thereby 
reducing resources needed from the Federal Government to manage 
and apply those lands there.
    Right now, as I stated in my testimony, we had fee status 
application for a trust status that took over 14 years to be 
able to get that done for us to try to enhance our operation, 
our Class III gaming operation.
    With the Federal Government, BIA, Department of the 
Interior going through all the different assessments and 
everything else and just essentially stonewalling a lot of this 
stuff. That is what really hinders tribes when they are trying 
to build economic development within a reservation.
    So, being able to reduce a lot of that paperwork, being 
able to reduce those areas that are required by oversight from 
regulations or unneeded regulations, would definitely benefit 
the Tribe and help reduce those costs. Thank you.
    Ms. Hageman. Well, that makes sense. And I am surprised at 
the amount of time that you have referenced in your testimony 
as to what it took to be able to develop and move forward with 
those projects.
    Mr. Robison, in 2016, Congress enacted the Indian Trust 
Asset Reform Act which you referred to. And among several 
things, it authorized a demonstration project in which Indian 
tribes may be authorized to negotiate to assume management and 
control of its non-mineral trust assets under a plan approved 
by the Secretary of the Interior.
    And under the ITARA Demonstration Project, your Tribe took 
over some forest management activities, I understand. Can you 
tell the Committee specifically what activities this includes 
and how ITARA works?
    Mr. Robison. Yes. Thank you for the question. So, the 
forest management activities that the Tribe assumed are those 
same forest management activities that are listed under the 
National Indian Forest Resource Management Act.
    So, these include things like timber sales, timber permits, 
prescribed burn plans, forestry enterprise agreements, and 
other authorities that would generally be approved under the 
BIA through the National Indian Forest Resource Management Act.
    And the way that ITARA works is that as tribes assume 
responsibility under the Demonstration Project, they are able 
to take on those authorities that the Bureau of Indian Affairs 
had been performing on behalf of the tribe. So, now those 
decisions are being made by the tribal government, under tribal 
rules and regulation, as opposed to Federal rules and 
regulations.
    Ms. Hageman. OK. Wonderful. Thank you for that. And, 
finally, Ms. Wavalene, you commented and testified about the 
need for infrastructure and the impact that a lack of roads has 
for the rural community that you represent, the rural tribes. 
Is the Federal Government involved in all of the decisions 
related to road building on your reservation?
    Ms. Wavalene. Yes. On behalf of the Tohono O'odham Nation, 
the Roads Program is a BIA Roads Program. So, not only the 
state but the federal roads that exist on the Tohono O'odham 
Nation. So, the bureaucracy that does create, for getting 
approvals and partnerships.
    I know that the Nation has stepped up to try to remedy some 
of the impacts on the roads. But because of liability issues, 
we are prohibited from pursuing any of those endeavors in 
addressing the potholes, the cracks in the road, and our 
bridges, and whatnot. So, it becomes a liability issue if the 
Nation is to continue to address those needs.
    So, it is the BIA at the Federal level that is technically 
responsible for the roads on the Tohono O'odham Nation.
    Ms. Hageman. OK. Well, thank you for that. Thank you all 
for your testimony in responding. The Chair now recognizes the 
Ranking Minority Member for her questioning.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you, Chairwoman Hageman, and 
thank you to the witnesses for your testimony. Vice Chairwoman 
Saunders, thank you very much for your testimony that laid out 
the multiple obstacles that tribes face, especially in rural 
areas.
    Can you talk a little bit more about financing, and access 
to capital, and workforce development? What do you think are 
the biggest financing obstacles for tribal small businesses on 
rural reservations?
    Ms. Saunders. So, for businesses on the Tohono O'odham 
Nation, for whether it be tribal members or anyone wanting to 
partner in providing services to the Tohono O'odham Nation, we 
are about a good hour, maybe a 50-mile drive from the nearest 
city.
    So, having to travel the roads and looking at the 
investment in regards to their products of services has been a 
challenge because of the technical availability of services and 
education and for them to invest in our community based on the 
distance between the nearest city.
    The challenge is that not only our members face for 
products that are readily available, but for those individuals 
and businesses that do have these products and investing and 
traveling to our community and what it all entails.
    And more so today with the economy and the prices of all 
the products, it hits us on our reservation because of the 
delivery of services, and the fees, and how expensive it is. 
So, it is really important to invest in small businesses at the 
community level, but also for those businesses off the Nation 
to really look at their investments and not push it off onto 
our tribal members. So, more funding availability to all 
businesses at all levels would benefit. It is a win-win 
situation. Thank you.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you. And Chairman Rupnick, in 
the discussions about a restricted fee status, I want to just 
clarify. The intent is to ensure that the land remains subject 
to tribal jurisdiction, not to state jurisdiction, no state 
taxation. So, what you are trying to do, is it correct, is to 
make a process that is more streamlined for it to come into 
restricted status, but that you retain full jurisdiction over 
the land? Is that correct?
    Mr. Rupnick. That is correct. When you go through the trust 
application process, and some of the experiences that we have 
had or realized over the last few years, it kind of depends on 
the local jurisdiction and who is elected into there. So, when 
we apply for land into trust, that goes through the state, then 
the county, and all those different agencies can offer up 
objections to that whether that land goes into trust.
    One of the biggest reasons why is because they realize that 
land comes off of their tax rolls. So, they do everything that 
they can to make sure that those lands that are held in fee 
status are still taxable for the longest amount of period of 
time.
    That causes a lot of delay because then you are fighting 
with county and state governments to be able to move that 
process forward. Then you have all of the other regulations 
that are coming down from the Department of the Interior, 
environmental assessments, so on and so forth, that really 
limits the tribe's ability to do anything on that land.
    Where if a streamlined process were 90 days, that land is 
purchased and moved into a restricted fee status, then the 
tribes could immediately start developing lands or whatever 
businesses that they wish to pursue on that piece of property.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you. And, Chairman Klatush, in 
your written testimony, you did mention the idea of expanding 
the Buy Indian Act. Would you also recommend that we expand the 
ability of tribes to compact and contract outside of the two 
agencies that are limited to?
    I think everybody on this panel has either compacts or 
contracts. And would you all agree you would love to have those 
expanded to the other agencies? Maybe, we will start with 
Chairman Klatush.
    Mr. Klatush. The Buy Indian Act, as currently drafted, only 
applies to the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health 
Service. The Department of Defense is not included in the Buy 
Indian Act. And I believe that expanding the Act to include the 
Defense Department would benefit all tribes.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. OK. Thank you. And maybe I will go 
straight over to Mr. Robison. What do you think about expanding 
Buy Indian and compacting, contracting?
    Mr. Robison. I can't speak to the Buy Indian. But I can say 
that anytime we have an opportunity to expand the compact 
authorities for tribes, it allows tribes to have a lot more 
opportunity for self-governance and a streamlining of processes 
and procedures.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you very much. And I yield back.
    Ms. Hageman. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mr. 
LaMalfa from California.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Madam Chair, and congratulations on 
your role here. We are looking forward to it, so thank you. I 
appreciate the panel for your time and travel to be here and be 
part of this here today, and express your firsthand concerns 
with the processes here we have with them.
    I share your frustration as well on getting permitting done 
to do some of the other things we need to do, in my rural 
Northern California district such as timber harvest, salvage 
after fire, water storage, many, many years involved.
    So, we are all right in the same boat on that. And we are 
looking to find relief for you all and other tribes around the 
country on being able to do basic things, economic things that 
are good for your membership, and such.
    And it was expressed a couple of times too, the amount of 
time it takes and also the effort. Now, we are here to 
legislate, so it is our job. We have nothing to complain about, 
but individual tribes do, for example, we have cases where 
there are surplus lands being held by a Federal entity and a 
tribe nearby is interested in that, taking it off their books 
and put it into play. We have had those. We have more prospects 
up in my district too for tribes interested in that.
    But it requires an entire piece of legislation to move at 
whatever pace it moves through, hopefully, within a 2-year 
cycle in Congress, and that has to be frustrating. Because it 
is year after year after year or recognition for tribes here 
that have had their recognition taken away in the past. So, I 
get how frustrating that is and there needs to be a lot more 
streamlining to get where you need to go.
    So, Vice Chairwoman Saunders, you were talking about your 
lands there in Arizona a little bit, and you have, in your 
purview, 734 miles of roads that are under BIA jurisdiction to 
keep spiffed up. And, obviously, from your testimony, they are 
not spiffy.
    So, what kind of progress do they make year in, year out, 
and is there an entity within the Tribe, for example? Does the 
Tribe have its own construction company that it could be doing 
that on its own with the right kind of funding?
    Ms. Saunders. Thank you for the question. On behalf of the 
Tohono O'odham Nation, we have a BIA Roads Program. We have a 
Department of Planning and Economic Development that works hand 
in hand with the BIA Roads Program. So, looking to address 
that, the bureaucracy that it does create for the funding, 
channeling the funding through the BIA and getting the 
approvals, the time that that in itself takes.
    But, definitely, our planning program has really improved 
in regards to addressing all of the grants that are available, 
all of the funding cycles that come through year in, year out, 
the time that it takes to actually get that funding, and a 
contract in place to address the roads. And the O'odham Nation 
is years behind, so I know that----
    Mr. LaMalfa. How many miles of road have been done, let's 
say, in the last 3 years, do you think? Just a rough guess.
    Ms. Saunders. Less than 100 miles.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Less than 100?
    Ms. Saunders. Yes.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Is that upgrading from perhaps dirt roads 
and----
    Ms. Saunders. Maintenance and upgrades, and it is also in 
collaboration with some funding that came through CBP. Because 
we do have Border Patrol that utilize this on our roads as 
well. So, partnering with them to address and seek funding, but 
also having to still go through the whole BIA process.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Quickly, on your water situation, are you on 
well water or do you draw, I am not quite sure where you are in 
proximity. Do you use Colorado River water for any purpose or 
are you all well water? What's your source?
    Ms. Saunders. We are a part of the Colorado River, but we 
do have a well source on the Tohono O'odham Nation that 
delivers water to all of the majority of our communities.
    Mr. LaMalfa. OK. Thank you. Let me shift to Mr. Robison 
from Cow Creek here. We talked about the three different styles 
of how land can be in fee, or trust, or a restricted fee. What 
do you find is going to be the most workable for you long term? 
You are just up the road from me a little bit. And in the 
various things that you are trying to accomplish economically, 
what's going to be the best tool for you?
    Mr. Robison. Great. Thank you for that question. Really, I 
think, having a variety of options on the table for the Tribe 
to select from is important. So, I think, as I said in my 
testimony today, having restricted fee available for us as an 
option, which we don't currently have as an option, is 
something we are very interested in.
    And one of the challenges is obviously the taxation with 
the state but also having additional authorities for us to 
manage those fee lands and provide potential business 
opportunities. It is extremely important.
    Trust lands, as we continue to work through the things like 
the Indian Trust Asset Reform Act, the HEARTH Act, we are able 
to bring on more regulations and things within the tribal 
government which makes things more streamlined. But trust lands 
continue to be a challenge for us as well, especially getting 
through the fee to trust process.
    Mr. LaMalfa. It is so hard, so hard. For the other three 
panelists, real fast; yes, or no? Are all three options really 
important to you, for the other three here? Yes?
    Mr. Klatush. Yes.
    Mr. Rupnick. Yes.
    Ms. Saunders. Yes.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Yes. OK. Thank you. I am sorry there is not 
more time. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
    Ms. Hageman. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Ms. 
Gonzalez-Colon from Puerto Rico.
    Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Madam Chair, and 
congratulations on chairing this Committee. I am happy to be 
here. And thank you, all the witnesses, for being here today.
    I was reading all the information regarding this hearing, 
and I was very surprised at the multiple levels of restrictions 
you have to use your own land.
    And in that sense, even as a trust land, fee land, or 
restricted fee land, at the end, I believe that land is the 
most important resource you have for economic development, for 
social, cultural issues. And when you have all those 
restrictions, there is no way you can succeed.
    So, I am happy this Committee is doing this hearing to see 
how we can expedite and allow all the tribes to use their land, 
and we are talking about American Indians, and, of course, 
Alaskan Natives as well.
    So, when I was reading the testimonies, Chairman Klatush, 
you said that your Tribe led efforts to repeal the provision on 
alcohol manufacturing on Indian lands. Coming from Puerto Rico, 
we produce a lot of alcohol and rum, so I know how important 
that is. In your testimony, you mentioned that the Tribe opened 
its Talking Cedar brewery and distillery in 2020, during the 
pandemic.
    And my question will be, how are you dealing with that at 
this time, and is there something regarding the Buy Indian Act 
that you are interested in selling products from this 
distillery to the nearby military base?
    Mr. Klatush. Yes. So, the distillery and the restaurant 
have been doing pretty good since we have opened them. During 
the pandemic, the restaurant was one of the few restaurants 
open in the area, and we received a significant amount, but I 
guess we, Joint Base Lewis McChord, yes.
    Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. And you are working to that end with a 
military base to sell your products using the Buy Indian Act to 
get all those products coming from the distillery to that 
place, right?
    Mr. Klatush. Yes.
    Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. OK. What other challenges do you have 
to create economic development in your lands?
    Mr. Klatush. For Chehalis, one of the biggest issues is 
staffing at the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Before, during, and 
especially after the pandemic, there just are not enough people 
in the Northwest Regional Office to process routine approvals 
and tasks.
    Most of the staff continues to telework, which for a long 
period of time, the Northwest Regional Office did not have a 
contracting officer. So, we could not get our 638 contracts 
approved. The same goes for approval of business leases, right-
of-ways, and other routine matters.
    Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you. Mr. Robison, in your 
written testimony, you called on this Committee to pursue 
opportunities to expand the use of restricted fee lands across 
Indian Country, including creating an administrative process 
for this land designation.
    What should be the proposal, and how expanding the use of 
those restricted fee lands will help spur economic activity in 
your areas? What specific things can we do here to allow that 
growth from happening?
    Mr. Robison. Great. I appreciate that question. I think one 
of the things that we need to look at is how do we give access 
to this restricted fee classification to all tribes as a tool 
in their toolbox to manage fee lands subject to or limited, 
without having the tax burden and without alienation, right?
    So, I think the restricted fee status, what that provides 
for Cow Creek is another option for us to look at those fee 
lands, hold that title for the Tribe, and use additional 
regulations and opportunities through tribal laws and 
regulations, working with Congress to provide more efficient 
opportunities for economic development.
    It is an option we don't have in our toolbox right now, and 
I think is an option that we need to be able to look at 
different opportunities for economic development.
    Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you. And my last question will 
be to Mr. Rupnick. You said in your testimony that it has been 
almost 22 years since your Tribe's retail shopping plaza 
project has been in the works and has not been completed yet.
    If you could look back and see on the planning stage, what 
are the things you have changed in terms of those planning to 
accommodate the longtime wait for that retail plaza to open or 
the use of the land?
    Mr. Rupnick. I think part of that is just the strict 
interpretation on some of the regulations that are put in place 
that tribes are forced to work with. That would also include 
the Non-Intercourse Act, which I think needs to be revised as 
well too, because there is a strict interpretation on that.
    So, if tribes go out and purchase fee simple land, and they 
can develop it, or they can't do anything with it, then you 
almost have to have a piece of legislation to allow tribes to 
be able to sell that to recoup whatever dollars they have 
already invested into that as well.
    But some of that process that we have right now is, of 
course, it is just a huge bureaucracy when it comes to land 
into trust. And being able to streamline that process through 
the Department of the Interior would help tribes tremendously 
when they are moving either into restricted fee or even that 
trust process that gives them that option of how they want to 
handle those lands.
    Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, sir. My time expired. I 
yield back.
    Ms. Hageman. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Ms. 
Stansbury from New Mexico.
    Ms. Stansbury. All right. Well, good morning, everyone. And 
thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I also want to congratulate you on 
your chairmanship and welcome you to the Committee, and also to 
the Ranking Member, and my sister from New Mexico.
    And, also, I want to welcome all of our tribal leaders who 
are here, not only on the panel, but in the audience, and also 
tuning in today. Thank you for traveling and thank you for 
being here with us today.
    I am Melanie Stansbury, and I represent New Mexico's 1st 
Congressional District, which is proudly home to a number of 
tribes and pueblos in New Mexico. New Mexico, of course, is 
home to 23 federally recognized tribes and pueblos.
    And the first thing that I want to just acknowledge is that 
while we are here to talk about economic development 
opportunities, our tribes and pueblos are already economic 
powerhouses in New Mexico and are, in fact, among some of the 
largest employers and generators of income in the state.
    In fact, amongst our tribes and pueblos, 19 pueblos 
generate over half a billion dollars in revenue alone every 
year in our state and employ over 11,000 people statewide.
    These enterprises are vital not only to our tribal 
communities, but also to our local, and regional, and state 
economies, and our primary sources of funding for tribal 
government, as our tribal leaders know here, to fund vital 
services, including emergency services, roads, elder support, 
and so much more.
    I also want to just take a moment to highlight a couple of 
the pueblos and tribes that are in our district in the 1st 
Congressional District. In particular, Sandia Pueblo which is 
just north of Albuquerque, which is my hometown, employs 
thousands of residents living in the Albuquerque area and has 
quite a diversified economic portfolio.
    And Mescalero Apache, in the southern portion of my 
district, operates an amazing set of enterprises around the 
hospitality and ski businesses, as well as a number of other 
major enterprises in southern New Mexico.
    But as I was listening to the testimony this morning, and 
also reading your testimony, I was struck by the number of 
barriers that still obviously are presented to so many of our 
Tribal Nations in terms of self-determination and nation-
building that extend far beyond even the conversation that we 
have had here today.
    So, Madam Chairwoman, while we have made a number of huge, 
huge steps forward in passing the Bipartisan Infrastructure 
Law, which made massive investments, hundreds of millions of 
dollars of investments, that have not yet hit many of our 
communities, in terms of roads, water, broadband and as well as 
the Inflation Reduction Act, which will bring a lot of money 
for energy infrastructure, water infrastructure.
    And we know that Secretary Deb Haaland and our President 
have made a strong commitment to tribal consultation, nation-
building, and economic investment. I was particularly struck by 
Chairwoman Saunders' testimony about the many and multivariate 
barriers, whether it is infrastructure, broadband, all of these 
things.
    So, I want to just do a quick lightning round for all of 
our panelists because we do have a limited time. You have 
presented testimony to us today, and I am going to put you each 
on the spot. This is the opportunity to present to all of us 
and to the country.
    If there was one thing that you could do in Congress that 
you personally think would have a major impact on economic 
development in your communities or across our Tribal Nations, 
what would it be? And I will start with Mr. Klatush.
    Mr. Klatush. The Buy Indian Act.
    Ms. Stansbury. OK. And Mr. Rupnick?
    Mr. Rupnick. There are a couple of things. One of them is 
dual taxation. I know that that is not an area for this 
Committee here. But, yes, restricted fee, allowing Nations more 
tools in their toolbox to be able to use the land as they best 
see fit.
    Ms. Stansbury. Thank you. And Vice Chairwoman?
    Ms. Saunders. I would say the additional funding for 
resources for technical assistance, and providing education, 
and really looking at the different ways of the bureaucracy, 
such as BIA. And just the process in itself to try to 
streamline those time frames and the processes in itself for 
the benefit of all.
    Ms. Stansbury. Thank you. And Mr. Robison?
    Mr. Robison. Great. Thank you for the question. I really 
think continuing to promote self-governance and tribal 
sovereignty by allowing tribes to manage their lands and 
resources according to tribal laws and regulations and tribal 
policies to meet tribal goals and objectives.
    Ms. Stansbury. All right. Well, I am amazed that we got 
through everyone. Obviously, this is just the first chapter of 
hopefully many conversations about hopefully bipartisan 
legislation we could advance to help support our Tribal 
Nations. So, we appreciate you being here today. And thank you, 
Madam Chairwoman.
    Ms. Hageman. Thank you. And I want to thank the witnesses 
for your incredibly valuable testimony, and the Members for 
their questions. Thank you for being here today.
    The members of the Committee may have some additional 
questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to 
these in writing. Under Committee Rule 3, members of the 
Committee must submit questions to the Committee Clerk by 5 
p.m. on Friday, March 3, 2023.
    The hearing record will be held open for 10 business days 
for those responses. If there is no further business----Mr. 
LaMalfa from California does have a follow-up question.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you. Thanks for the indulgence on that. 
We have you here so I would like the opportunity for follow-up. 
Mr. Robison from Cow Creek, I want to touch a little more on 
the issues of dealing with the Endangered Species Act, and 
timber management, and such as that.
    So, what has your Tribe encountered with trying to deal 
with timber harvest? And I understand you had a Demonstration 
Project that you are looking at on demonstrating better 
forestry practices. So, what has the spotted owl species, for 
example, brought as part of inhibiting your process there?
    Mr. Robison. Thanks for the great question. Under ITARA, we 
have taken over all the authorities from the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs. So, as far as the spotted owl, we actually do on-site 
monitoring and management of spotted owls under our tribal 
authorities.
    We have a tribal environmental review process that we 
follow now, as opposed to the National Environmental Policy 
Act. And for our ESA compliance, because we have assumed the 
Federal responsibility, we no longer follow Section 7 in 
Endangered Species Act. We actually fall under Section 9, the 
take avoidance.
    So, we use a very comprehensive take avoidance strategy. We 
also have the opportunity to develop a species conservation 
plan working with the services on tribal lands. So, really, as 
we look at tribal land management under ITARA for the tribe, 
things have actually gotten quite easier.
    To the question though, on working with our adjacent 
Federal land partners, that continues to be a challenge for us 
as we look at ways to reduce wildfire risk, increase forest 
resiliency, and forest health.
    We have to find a way to work around the Endangered Species 
Act and other environmental laws that are set in place for 
obviously good reasons but can be challenging and cumbersome to 
actually get good work done on the ground to enhance those 
resources.
    Mr. LaMalfa. We have had massive wildfires in Northern 
California and Southern Oregon. I had a 1 million-acre Dixie 
Fire which affected my district. You had large fires in Oregon 
last year, or was that 2 years ago? It doesn't matter for right 
now. Did it come from Federal land onto tribal land in your 
particular situation? And how many acres did it devastate?
    Mr. Robison. Yes. So, we actually lost--we had a couple of 
fires on tribal lands. Immediately after the Western Oregon 
Tribal Fairness Act was passed, where we received 17,800 acres 
of BLM lands back to the Tribe, we had about a 3,600-acre fire 
that took about 20 percent of that new ownership out. That 
actually came on from the state lands onto tribal lands and 
resulted in impact.
    But here recently, in the last few years, we have had 
several fires threatening tribal lands. And we have worked very 
diligently with the Umpqua National Forest to try to figure out 
how we alleviate the potential threat from those adjacent lands 
on the tribal lands.
    Just a few years ago, we had the Smith Fire which was a 
small fire. It started out 10 to 12 acres. It sat unattended 
for about 10 days and then blew up into about a 70,000-acre 
fire threatening tribal fee lands and trust lands. So, we have 
to find a way to reduce that wildfire risk.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Please submit some of your thoughts and watch 
what we are going to do in the Subcommittee on Forestry and the 
Ag. Committee if you would, and we will be looking at that.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the 
indulgence. I will yield back.
    Ms. Hageman. Thank you. Excellent questions and appreciate 
the testimony and additional information.
    Again, if there is no further business, without objection, 
the Committee stands adjourned.

    [Whereupon, at 10:10 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

            [ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

                 Supplemental Statement for the Record
                        Joseph Rupnick, Chairman
                     Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation

    Dear Chair Hageman, Ranking Member Leger-Fernandez, and 
Subcommittee Members:

    Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee on 
March 1, 2023. I was honored to share my thoughts with the Subcommittee 
on ``Unlocking Indian Country's Economic Potential,'' particularly as 
it relates to the ownership and use of tribal lands for economic 
development. This supplemental statement expands upon my remarks for 
inclusion in the hearing record.
    As the Chairman of the Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, I represent 
approximately 4,500 Potawatomi people, most of whom live on our 
reservation in Kansas, defined by our 1846 Treaty with the U.S. 
Government. Originally, our people owned and resided on lands in 
northern Illinois, but we were subject to removal treaties in 1829 and 
1833 that relinquished all but 1,280 acres of that land. Our 1846 
treaty established a 900-square-mile reservation for us in Kansas, but 
development pressure, the federal government's land allotment policies, 
and outright theft resulted in most of our land being lost to non-
Indians. Just a few decades ago, our Nation owned less than 5% of the 
land originally promised to us.
    Today, lands within our reservation are heavily ``checkerboarded,'' 
meaning that there are mixed parcels of land within the reservation 
owned by our Nation, individual Nation citizens, and non-Indians. And 
because the status of the land differs based on ownership, so too does 
the jurisdiction and taxing authority of the tribal, federal, state, 
and county governments. Frankly, what the government has done to us and 
our lands has created a mess.
    This mess is compounded by the fact that the lands we have retained 
are considered ``trust lands''--owned by and under the federal 
government's jurisdiction. In my view, the idea of ``trust land'' is 
not normal and should be fixed to recognize that our Nation owns our 
lands within our treaty-defined reservations and is subject to our 
primary jurisdiction. The federal government's role should be to 
protect our lands against the sale and external taxation and 
regulation, not management and interference with our Tribal 
government's land use decisions.
    Perhaps the most glaring defect of trust land status is how it 
interferes with economic development activities we wish to pursue in 
support of our people. For example, in recent years, we have sought to 
expand a retail shopping plaza with a convenience store to support our 
Class III gaming facility. We acquired the land in fee from non-Indian 
sellers. We had to apply to the Bureau of Indian Affairs to have the 
land taken into trust, which took 14 years. We had to undergo excessive 
environmental review because the land is now considered to be in trust 
status. The utility service takes time to hook up because of the 
federal regulations governing rights of way on trust land. We started 
this project 22 years ago, but it is still unfinished. Nowhere in 
America other than Indian Country does this kind of bureaucratic 
stranglehold occur.
    To remedy this situation, I recommend that the Subcommittee 
consider three different legislative actions to improve the use of 
tribal lands.

                                  ***

    First, Congress should enact legislation to allow for any Indian 
nation at its own choosing to acquire lands under its jurisdiction in 
restricted fee status. Restricted fee status is a long-established form 
of tribal landownership similar to trust status, but the land is 
considered owned by and under the jurisdiction of the Indian nation, 
not the federal government.
    The late Don Young, the former Dean of the House, supported 
sovereignty for tribal governments to own our lands and exercise 
jurisdiction over them within our reservations. He developed 
legislation, the ``Native American Land Empowerment Act,'' that he 
introduced in the 112th and subsequent Congresses to allow for Indian 
nations to acquire restricted fee lands within our existing 
reservations.\1\ He proposed a 90-day process that land acquired by a 
tribe in fee within its reservation would automatically be converted to 
restrict fee status under its ownership and jurisdiction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ See e.g. H.R. 8931, 115th Cong. At https://www.congress.gov/
116/bills/hr8951/BILLS-116hr8951ih.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Enactment of this legislation would create an alternative process 
to the current fee-to-trust process. All tribal nations could save time 
and money and strengthen our ability to engage in economic development 
within our reservations if we had this tool at our disposal. Some 
tribes may not like the idea and would prefer to have their lands held 
in trust, which is their right. But for nations that want greater 
control over our land use from the federal government, we should have 
that opportunity.

    What is restricted fee land status? Trust lands are considered 
owned by the United States government for the benefit and occupancy of 
a particular Indian tribe. Restricted fee lands are recognized as owned 
by the Tribal nation itself, subject to a restriction against 
alienation and taxation imposed by federal law.\2\ Restricted fee lands 
are managed by a Tribal nation, not the federal government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ See 25 U.S.C. Sec. 177; 25 C.F.R. Sec. 151.2(e).

    What would the Land Empowerment Act do if enacted? The Act would 
allow any federally-recognized Indian nation or tribe, at its choice, 
to convert any or all of their trust lands or tribally-owned fee lands 
within its reservation to restricted fee status by giving notice to the 
Secretary of the Interior. If the Secretary failed to act on the 
tribe's request within 90 days, the land would automatically convert to 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
restricted fee status.

    Do restricted fee lands have Indian Country status? Yes. Both trust 
land and restricted fee lands are ``Indian Country.'' \3\ are subject 
to tribal and federal jurisdiction,\4\ and are immune from state 
regulation and taxation.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ ``Indian Country'' includes ``reservations,'' ``dependent 
Indian communities,'' and ``allotments.'' See 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1151. 
Tribal nations owning lands in restricted fee status are Indian 
Country. See U.S. v. Sandoval, 231 U.S. 28 (1913) (Pueblos); Indian 
Country U.S.A., Inc. v. State of Oklahoma, 829 F.2d 937 (10th Cir. 
1987) (Creek Nation).
    \4\ fee lands that pass into trust status or restricted fee status 
are subject to tribal jurisdiction. See Citizens Against Casino 
Gambling in Erie County v. Chauduri, (2nd Cir. 2014), at 55-57.
    \5\ See Citizens Against Casino Gambling in Erie County v. Hogen, 
(W.D.N.Y., Jul. 8, 2008) at 69 (``Congress has treated trust land and 
restricted fee land as jurisdictional equivalents in a number of Indian 
statutes of general applicability.'').

    Is restricted fee land more at risk of state jurisdiction or 
taxation? No. Restricted fee land is Indian Country under federal law 
and is the equivalent of trust land for jurisdictional purposes.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ See CACGEC, supra at 70 (``[W]here land is held in trust or is 
subject to a restriction against alienation imposed by law, a state is 
without jurisdiction over the land except as permitted by the federal 
government.'').

    If the Land Empowerment Act is enacted, would it reflect a major 
change in federal law? No. The Act is consistent with recent 
Congressional action to respect tribal sovereignty over land use to 
maximize economic development potential. In 2012, Congress enacted the 
HEARTH Act to amend the Long-Term Leasing Act of 1955 to establish a 
procedure for tribal governments to gain greater control over leasing 
trust lands for a 75-year period.\7\ Congress has also regularly 
enacted piecemeal legislation to allow tribes to lease land for 99 
years, as discussed further below. And the Indian Trust Asset Reform 
Act of 2016 allows for tribes to fully manage their trust land 
resources.\8\ The Land Empowerment Act would streamline this process 
even further.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ See 25 U.S.C. Sec. 415.
    \8\ See 25 U.S.C. Sec. 5601 et seq.

    What would be the effect of the Land Empowerment Act on tribal 
self-government and economic growth? The Act would restore tribal 
landownership to lease and regulate our own lands to promote tribal 
economic development without federal government management. It would 
not change any existing federal law relating to gaming development. But 
it would be an important step toward streamlining tribal land use for 
economic development and thereby strengthening tribal sovereignty by 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
providing more flexibility and more options for economic growth.

    Would the Land Empowerment Act affect the federal government's 
funding obligation to Tribes? No. The federal trust responsibility and 
federal funding are independent of whether a Tribal nation occupies 
trust land or owns restricted fee land. The Act expressly preserves the 
federal government's trust obligation to protect the Tribe and its 
lands.

    Would the Land Empowerment Act affect the status of trust 
allotments? No, not without the consent of the allottee.
    Could restricted fee lands revert to trust status under the Act if 
originally converted to restricted fee status? Yes, however, the 
federal government would not be held responsible for any implications 
of land use while it was owned by the Tribe in restricted fee status.

    Is there a precedent for restricted fee landownership in Indian 
Country? Yes, the federal government and federal law has recognized 
restricted fee land status since 1790 under the Nonintercourse Act. The 
Six Nations of the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) located in New York State 
retain aboriginal title to their lands, which are considered owned in 
restricted fee status. Restricted fee land exists in other parts of 
Indian Country as well (e.g. Oklahoma, New Mexico).

    Has Congress previously acted to allow for the creation of 
restricted fee lands? Yes, on two recent occasions Congress has 
established a process for Tribal nations to acquire restricted fee 
lands.
    In 1990, Congress enacted the Seneca Nation Settlement Act, which 
allows the Seneca Nation of Indians to utilize settlement funds 
appropriated under the Act to acquire restricted fee land within its 
aboriginal territory in Western New York State.\9\ Upon the use of 
Settlement Act funds to acquire land in fee simple status, the Act 
allows the Seneca Nation to give notice to the Secretary of the 
Interior and affected local governments of its acquisition. Within 60 
days of said notice, the land is automatically converted to restricted 
fee status and is considered Indian Country under the Nation's 
jurisdiction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ See Pub. L. 101-503, 104 Stat. 1292, Nov. 3, 1990 (https://
www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-104/pdf/STATUTE-104-Pg1292.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 2016, Congress enacted the ``Return of Certain Lands at Fort 
Wingate to The Original Inhabitants Act'' for the benefit of the Zuni 
Tribe and Navajo Nation.\10\ This law transferred former Fort Wingate 
military land back to these two Tribal nations in trust status but 
allowed them to convert the lands to restricted fee status at their 
discretion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ See Cong. Rec. H2735-H2737, May 18, 2016 (attached).

    If the Land Empowerment Act is enacted, will it be mandatory for 
Tribal governments? No. The decision to convert trust lands into 
restricted fee status is a choice. The National Congress of American 
Indians, Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, and the United South 
and Eastern Tribes have each adopted resolutions supporting the right 
of tribal governments to have the choice to acquire lands in restricted 
fee status (attached).

                                  ***

    In addition to establishing a new legal process for acquiring lands 
in restricted fee status, I recommend two other critical legislative 
changes to expand Tribal government authority to better utilize our 
lands for economic development purposes.

    Congress should recognize that all Tribal governments have 
authority to lease trust lands for up to 99 years. Right now, Indian 
nations are limited in our ability to lease our lands without federal 
approval. In 2012, Congress took a major step forward when it enacted 
the HEARTH Act to amend the Indian Long-Term Leasing Act of 1955 to 
allow for the leasing of trust or restricted lands of up to 75 years. 
But, to regain that inherent authority, a tribe must first ask 
permission and secure approval from the federal government to exercise 
that authority. And to get that approval, a Tribe's laws must have a 
variety of restrictions and controls governing land use that are nearly 
as burdensome as the federal government's own regulations.
    In true fashion, the Federal Government acted in a manner that 
looks like it is respecting tribal sovereignty but loads up the process 
with so many other restrictions that you have to wonder whether it's 
really worth it.
    Congress should simply fix this situation by enacting legislation 
that allows any Indian nation that wants the authority to lease its 
trust lands for 99 years to do so. Again, if a Tribe wants to utilize 
the existing legal regime, that is their choice. But if other Tribal 
nations like ours want a streamlined process, the federal government 
should just get out of the way.

                                  ***

    Lastly, Congress should clarify that the Nonintercourse Act does 
not apply to the purchase and sale of Tribally-owned fee lands. This 
Act, one of the first pieces of legislation enacted by Congress in 
1790, serves an important function in protecting the sale and 
alienation of Indian trust or restricted fee lands. But it should not 
apply to land transactions involving the purchase and sale of fee 
lands. Many Tribal governments, including ours, are interested in 
expanding our economic opportunities into real estate development, but 
any future sale of such land could be stopped because of a restrictive 
interpretation of the Nonintercourse Act. The Nonintercourse Act is 
important legislation that should remain in place. However, it should 
not be interpreted to interfere with the sale of Tribally-owned fee 
land within our outside of reservation boundaries.

                                  ***

    In conclusion, I want to thank you again, Madam Chair and 
Subcommittee members, for the opportunity to submit this supplemental 
testimony. For 50 years, the official policy of Congress has been to 
support tribal sovereignty and self-determination. More must be done to 
make this a reality regarding the use of tribal lands to support the 
economic self-sufficiency of sovereign Tribal nations.

                                 *****

This Statement along with attachments is part of the hearing record and 
is being retained in the Committee's official files.

The Statement with attachments is available for viewing at:

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II24/20230301/115374/HMTG-118-II24-
20230301-SD003.pdf

                                 ______
                                 

Submission for the Record by Rep. Grijalva

                        Statement for the Record
                 United South and Eastern Tribes (USET)
                      Sovereignty Protection Fund
    The United South and Eastern Tribes Sovereignty Protection Fund 
(USET SPF) is pleased to provide the House Subcommittee on Indian and 
Insular Affairs (SIIA) with the following testimony for the record of 
the March 1, 2023 oversight hearing, ``Unlocking Indian Country's 
Economic Potential.'' The inaugural hearing of SIIA in the 118th 
Congress focused on the challenges Indian Country faces in pursuing 
economic opportunities due to the complex status and restrictions 
imposed on Tribal Lands. However, this is just one example of the 
barriers that exist as a direct result of shameful federal policies 
that sought to terminate Tribal Nations, assimilate Native people, and 
to erode Tribal territories, learning, cultures, and economies. Today, 
many federal programs' management and funding systems operate under an 
archaic model of paternalism that does not support Tribal Nation 
sovereignty and self-determination.
    In addition to addressing land use and restrictions, USET SPF 
offers several additional priorities that must also receive the same 
consideration from Congress and the Subcommittee to empower Tribal 
Nations to pursue efforts in Nation rebuilding. These include support 
for the restoration of Tribal homelands, tax parity, and the expansion 
of self-governance contracting and compacting across the federal 
government.
    USET Sovereignty Protection Fund (USET SPF) is a non-profit, inter-
tribal organization advocating on behalf of thirty-three (33) federally 
recognized Tribal Nations from the Northeastern Woodlands to the 
Everglades and across the Gulf of Mexico.\1\ USET SPF is dedicated to 
promoting, protecting, and advancing the inherent sovereign rights and 
authorities of Tribal Nations and in assisting its membership in 
dealing effectively with public policy issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ USET SPF member Tribal Nations include: Alabama-Coushatta Tribe 
of Texas (TX), Catawba Indian Nation (SC), Cayuga Nation (NY), 
Chickahominy Indian Tribe (VA), Chickahominy Indian Tribe-Eastern 
Division (VA), Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana (LA), Coushatta Tribe of 
Louisiana (LA), Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians (NC), Houlton Band of 
Maliseet Indians (ME), Jena Band of Choctaw Indians (LA), Mashantucket 
Pequot Indian Tribe (CT), Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe (MA), Miccosukee 
Tribe of Indians of Florida (FL), Mi'kmaq Nation (ME), Mississippi Band 
of Choctaw Indians (MS), Mohegan Tribe of Indians of Connecticut (CT), 
Monacan Indian Nation (VA), Nansemond Indian Nation (VA), Narragansett 
Indian Tribe (RI), Oneida Indian Nation (NY), Pamunkey Indian Tribe 
(VA), Passamaquoddy Tribe at Indian Township (ME), Passamaquoddy Tribe 
at Pleasant Point (ME), Penobscot Indian Nation (ME), Poarch Band of 
Creek Indians (AL), Rappahannock Tribe (VA), Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe 
(NY), Seminole Tribe of Florida (FL), Seneca Nation of Indians (NY), 
Shinnecock Indian Nation (NY), Tunica-Biloxi Tribe of Louisiana (LA), 
Upper Mattaponi Indian Tribe (VA) and the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head 
(Aquinnah) (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Economic Development in Indian Country and the USET SPF Region

    Prior to European contact, Tribal Nations, including USET SPF 
members, had a long history of dynamic economies and governance 
structures. Robust trade networks connected Tribal Nations and the 
goods we produced. As with other aspects of Tribal governance and 
infrastructure, the removal, termination, and assimilation policies of 
the United States government negatively impacted our traditional 
economic trade. Over the course of centuries, Tribal Nations ceded 
millions of acres of land and extensive resources to the U.S.--
oftentimes by force--in exchange for which it is legally and morally 
obligated to provide benefits and services in perpetuity. Because of 
this historic and ongoing diplomatic relationship, the federal 
government has trust and treaty obligations to support Tribal self-
governance and self-determination, along with rebuilding Tribal Nations 
and economies. Unfortunately, at no point has the federal government 
fully delivered upon and upheld these obligations.
    In addition to being relegated to fractions of our original 
homelands, which can be in remote areas, Tribal Nations lack 
governmental parity in economic development opportunities and treatment 
under the U.S. tax code. All Tribal Nations, especially USET SPF member 
Tribal Nations, vary in levels of economic activity, capacity, and 
development. Some Tribal Nations have decades of experience and 
familiarity with economic development initiatives, while some are just 
starting to pursue these initiatives. This diversity demands that 
federal policy not adopt a one-size-fits all approach in supporting 
Tribal Nations and businesses to pursue economic development 
initiatives to support our communities and engage in Nation rebuilding. 
With nearly every aspect of economic development regulated by the 
federal government, economic progress in Indian Country is often 
stymied by burdens on Tribal Nations and businesses. These burdens have 
contributed to a perpetual cycle of social and economic hardship in our 
communities, and are a remnant of paternalism that continues to exist 
today, despite an evolution away from past policies of termination and 
assimilation toward greater Tribal self-determination and self-
governance.

    In 2012, the Federal Reserve Board of Governors issued a report on, 
Growing Economies in Indian Country, that outlined eight issues as 
fundamental challenges to realizing economic growth in Indian Country. 
USET SPF's member Tribal Nations, with few exceptions, still 
disproportionately contend with these same challenges, such as:

  1. Insufficient access to capital;

  2. Capacity and capital constraints of small business;

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

  4. Tribal governance constraints;

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

  6. Underdeveloped physical infrastructure;

  7. Insufficient research and data; and

  8. Lack of regional collaboration.

    Though this report is over a decade old, its relevancy today on the 
current state of economic challenges in Indian Country highlights the 
failures of the federal government in upholding its trust and treaty 
obligations to Tribal Nations. Congress and the Administration must 
work to free Tribal Nations from over-burdensome laws and regulations 
that impede our social and economic success. This is especially 
important in an environment of the federal government's failures to 
uphold trust and treaty obligations to fully fund programs and services 
for Indian Country. Similar to other governments, Tribal Nations 
provide vital economic, social, health, and public safety services to 
our people. As it is for any other sovereign, economic sovereignty is 
essential to our ability to be self-determining and self-sufficient. 
While economic success in no way diminishes the United States' moral 
and legal obligations to Tribal Nations, it remains critical to our 
continued nation rebuilding. Building strong, vibrant, and mature 
economies is more than just business development. It requires 
comprehensive planning to ensure that our economies have the necessary 
infrastructure, services, and opportunities for our citizens to thrive. 
And when Tribal Nations and our citizens have economic success, 
surrounding communities and their citizens share in the benefits. This 
results in stronger Tribal Nations and a stronger America.
Ensure Tribal Nation Economic Parity

    The federal government has a responsibility to ensure that federal 
tax law treats Tribal Nations in a manner consistent with our sovereign 
governmental status, as reflected under the U.S. Constitution and 
numerous federal laws, treaties, and federal court decisions. With this 
in mind, we remain focused on the advancement of tax reform that would 
address inequities in the tax code and eliminate state dual taxation. 
Revenue generated within Indian Country continues to be taken outside 
our borders or otherwise falls victim to a lack of parity. Similarly, 
Tribal governments continue to lack many of the same benefits and 
flexibility offered to other units of government under the tax code. 
This largely prevents Tribal Nations from achieving an economic 
multiplier effect, allowing for each dollar to turn over multiple times 
within a given Tribal economy. The failure of the federal government to 
recognize Tribal Nations in a manner consistent with our sovereign 
governmental status has hindered our efforts to rebuild and grow our 
economies.
    USET SPF continues to press Congress for changes to the U.S. tax 
code that would provide governmental parity and economic development to 
Tribal Nations. These efforts included support in previous Congresses 
for the Tribal Tax and Investment Reform Act. This bill specified the 
treatment of Tribal Nations as states with respect to bond issuance and 
modified the treatment of pension and employee benefit plans maintained 
by a Tribal Government. It also aimed to modify the treatment of Tribal 
foundations and charities, improve the effectiveness of Tribal child 
support enforcement agencies, and recognize Tribal governments for 
purposes of determining whether a child has special needs eligible for 
the adoption tax credit. USET SPF urges the Subcommittee to support 
similar legislative efforts in the 118th Congress to increase Tribal 
Nation economic parity.
Address Dual Taxation in Indian Country

    Dual taxation hinders Tribal Nations from achieving our own revenue 
generating potential. Although Tribal Nations have authority to tax 
noncitizens doing business in Indian Country, when other jurisdictions 
can tax those same noncitizens for the same transactions, Tribal 
Nations must lower their taxes to keep overall pricing at rates the 
market can bear or forgo levying a tax at all. The application of an 
outside government's tax often makes the Tribal tax economically 
unfeasible.
    Dual taxation undercuts the ability of Tribal Nations to offer tax 
incentives to encourage non-Indian business entities onto our lands to 
create jobs and stimulate Tribal economies. As long as outside 
governments tax non-Indian businesses on our lands--even if a Tribal 
government offers complete Tribal tax immunity to attract a new non-
Indian business--that business is subject to the same state tax rate 
that is applicable outside our jurisdictional boundaries. As a matter 
of economic fairness, we ask SIIA to work with us to support and 
advance initiatives that would bring certainty in tax jurisdiction to 
Tribal Lands by confirming the exclusive, sovereign authority of Tribal 
governments to assess taxes on all economic activities occurring within 
our jurisdictional boundaries.
Support Responsible Development in the Energy Sector

    USET SPF member Tribal Nations, and our respective Tribal Lands and 
energy resources, are located within a large region that presents 
diverse geographical environments and opportunities for both 
conventional and renewable energy development. Our member Tribal 
Nations could benefit from the unlocked potential of those energy 
resources and realize energy development goals, through appropriate 
Congressional action and investment in Indian Country; and further 
actions by the Administration, particularly to promote balanced 
geographical representation and inclusion of USET SPF member Tribal 
Nations in energy programs.

    USET SPF has established its energy priorities, as follows:

     Tribal self-determination and control of natural resources 
            and energy assets, to make conservation and development 
            decisions to preserve Tribal sovereignty, protect Tribal 
            assets, and to achieve economic independence, creation of 
            jobs, and improvement of Tribal citizens' standard of 
            living.

     Tribal capacity building effort involving multiple federal 
            agencies, universities, and the private sector.

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

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

    We remain concerned, however, with efforts to streamline energy 
development by bypassing requirements under the National Environmental 
Policy Act (NEPA). USET SPF is aware of legislative proposals that 
would scale back environmental protections and review processes 
mandated under NEPA to streamline the approval of domestic energy 
development. We do not oppose conventional or renewable energy 
development, and many of USET SPF's member Tribal Nations pursue these 
activities. However, such development occurring outside of Tribal 
Nation jurisdictional boundaries must not come at the expense of our 
cultural resources and natural environments or Tribal consultation. 
Tribal Nations have already experienced immense land loss, theft, and 
the destruction and desecration of our cultural and environmental 
resources and aboriginal homelands. We should not be subjected to such 
actions again in to further a domestic energy policy agenda.
    In addition to our concerns with scaling back NEPA provisions, 
several USET SPF member Tribal Nations have had to contend with federal 
agencies failing to properly consult with Tribal Nations on proposed 
energy projects. This includes wind energy development projects under 
the oversight of the Bureau of Ocean Management that have been proposed 
for construction, and some of which are currently undergoing 
construction, on the Outer Continental Shelf. Several of our member 
Tribal Nations were not properly consulted about the permitting of 
these wind energy project sites and have not received the resources and 
technical assistance required to properly and adequately review 
environmental, geological, and other assessments related to these 
projects. Funding remains stagnate and inadequate for Tribal Historic 
Preservation Officers (THPOs) to conduct reviews of proposed projects 
in order to appropriately ascertain the potential cultural and 
environmental impacts. We urge the Subcommittee to support increased 
funding for THPOs and ensure that efforts to streamline environmental 
review process are not implemented at the expense of the destruction of 
our cultural resources, sites, and natural environments.
Support the Restoration of Tribal Homelands and Enact a `Carcieri Fix'

    Possession of a land base is a core aspect of sovereignty, cultural 
identity, and represents the foundation of a government's economy. This 
is no different for Tribal Nations. USET SPF Tribal Nations continue to 
work to reacquire our homelands, which are fundamental to our existence 
as sovereign governments and our ability to thrive as vibrant, healthy, 
self-sufficient communities. The federal government's objective in the 
trust responsibility and obligations to our Nations must be to support 
healthy and sustainable self-determining Tribal governments, which 
fundamentally includes the restoration of lands to all federally 
recognized Tribal Nations, as well as the legal defense of these land 
acquisitions. USET SPF continues to call upon Congress to enact a fix 
to the 2009 Supreme Court decision in Carcieri v. Salazar. For too 
long, this decision has impeded our ability to rightfully restore our 
land bases and pursue Nation rebuilding efforts. Congress must enact 
legislation that: (1) reaffirms the status of current trust lands; and 
(2) confirms that the Secretary of the Interior has authority to take 
land into trust for all federally recognized Tribal Nations.
Support the Expansion of ISDEAA Contracting and Compacting Across the 
        Federal Government for Tribal Nations

    Tribal Nations are political, sovereign entities whose status stems 
from the inherent sovereignty we have as self-governing peoples that 
pre-dates the founding of the United States. The U.S. Constitution, 
treaties, statutes, Executive Orders, and judicial decisions all 
recognize that the federal government has a fundamental trust 
relationship to Tribal Nations, including the obligation uphold the 
right to self-government. Our federal partners must fully recognize the 
inherent right of Tribal Nations to fully engage in self-governance, so 
we may exercise full decision-making in the management of our own 
affairs and governmental services. Despite the success of Tribal 
Nations in exercising authority under the Indian Self-Determination and 
Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA), the goals of self-governance have 
not been fully realized. Many opportunities still remain to improve and 
expand upon the principles of self-governance and self-determination. 
An expansion of ISDEAA authorities to all programs across the federal 
government would be the next evolutionary step in the federal 
government's recognition of Tribal sovereignty and reflect its full 
commitment to Tribal Nation sovereignty and self-determination. The 
expansion of self-governance contracting and compacting will not only 
empower us to better serve our citizens and communities, but it will 
enhance our abilities to manage our lands. It would empower Tribal 
Nations to administer federal programs in co-management, stewardship, 
agriculture, deployment and maintenance of critical infrastructures, 
and pursue economic development on our lands. It is time for Congress 
to enact legislation that expands our self-governance capabilities 
across the federal government so that we may fully exercise our 
inherent sovereign rights to manage our affairs and resources.
Invest in and Rebuild Tribal Infrastructure--A Marshall Plan for Tribal 
        Nations

    For generations, the federal government--despite abiding trust and 
treaty obligations--has substantially under-invested in Indian 
Country's infrastructure and engaged in hostile actions against Tribal 
Nations. While the United States faces crumbling infrastructure 
nationally, there are many in Indian Country who lack even basic 
infrastructure. Much like the U.S. investment in the rebuilding 
European nations following World War II via the Marshall Plan, the 
legislative and executive branches should commit to the same level of 
responsibility to assisting in the rebuilding of Tribal Nations, as our 
current circumstances are, in large part, directly attributable to the 
shameful acts and policies of the U.S. In the same way the Marshall 
Plan acknowledged America's debt to European sovereigns and was 
utilized to strengthen our relationships and security abroad, the U.S. 
should make this strategic investment domestically.
Conclusion

    Unlocking the economic potential of Indian Country must take into 
consideration several issues and priorities to support Tribal Nation 
rebuilding efforts. The historic and ongoing injustices that have 
contributed to economic insecurity in Indian Country are symptomatic of 
the larger issues we face as Tribal Nations. In large part, this is due 
to the failure of the U.S. government to live up to the terms of our 
diplomatic, Nation-to-Nation relationship. Development and 
implementation of policies and programs that recognize and uphold our 
inherent sovereignty and fulfill trust and treaty obligations are 
necessary to alleviate economic hardship, rebuild Tribal Nations, and 
improve the quality of life for our citizens and communities. Congress 
must continue to support and fully fund federal programs that encourage 
economic sovereignty through the restoration of Tribal homelands, self-
governance contracting and compacting across all federal programs, tax 
parity, and responsible energy development. We welcome the opportunity 
to collaborate with the Subcommittee on economic policies that better 
honor federal trust and treaty obligations and uphold our inherent 
sovereignty to pursue our Nation rebuilding priorities, including 
unlocking the potential of international trade via our unique status.