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


                  H.R. 630; H.R. 1240; H.R. 1722; H.R. 2461; 
                        H.R. 2839; AND H.R. 3371

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

                          LEGISLATIVE 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, June 7, 2023

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-35

                               __________

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


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

                                
                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
52-513 PDF                 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, TX			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, June 7, 2023..........................     1

Statement of Members:

    Hageman, Hon. Harriet M., a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of Wyoming.......................................     2
        Prepared statement of....................................     3
    Leger Fernandez, Hon. Teresa, a Representative in Congress 
      from the State of New Mexico...............................     4
    Salinas, Hon. Andrea, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Oregon............................................     6
    Johnson, Hon. Dustin, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of South Dakota......................................     7
        Prepared statement of....................................     8
    Hoyle, Hon. Val, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of Oregon..................................................     9
        Prepared statement of....................................    10
    Crane, Hon. Elijah, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Arizona...........................................    16
    Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Arizona...........................................    17
        Prepared statement of....................................    17

Statement of Witnesses:

    Panel I:

    Newland, Hon. Bryan, Assistant Secretary, Indian Affairs, 
      U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC............    11
        Prepared statement of....................................    12
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    15
    Egorin, Hon. Melanie Anne, Ph.D., Assistant Secretary for 
      Legislation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 
      Washington, DC.............................................    18
        Prepared statement of....................................    19
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    21

    Panel II:

    Kitcheyan, Hon. Victoria, Chairwoman, Winnebago Tribe of 
      Nebraska, Winnebago, Nebraska..............................    28
        Prepared statement of....................................    31
    Lane, Hon. Alfred ``Bud'', III, Vice Chairman, Confederated 
      Tribes of Siletz Indians, Siletz, Oregon...................    32
        Prepared statement of....................................    34
    Lehi, Hon. Johnny, Jr., President, San Juan Southern Paiute 
      Tribe, Tuba City, Arizona..................................    36
        Prepared statement of....................................    38
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    46
    Langley, Hon. Michael, Tribal Counsel Secretary, Confederated 
      Tribes of the Grand Ronde, Grand Ronde, Oregon.............    48
        Prepared statement of....................................    50
    LeBeau, Hon. Ryman, Chairman, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, 
      Eagle Butte, South Dakota..................................    54
        Prepared statement of....................................    55
    Star Comes Out, Hon. Frank, President, Oglala Sioux Tribe, 
      Pine Ridge, South Dakota...................................    58
        Prepared statement of....................................    60
    Crevier, Francys, CEO, National Council of Urban Indian 
      Health, Washington, DC.....................................    62
        Prepared statement of....................................    64
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    67

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:

    Submission for the Record by Representative Westerman

        National Indian Health Board, Letter with Comments on 
          H.R. 630, dated June 12, 2023..........................    79

 
  LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 630, TO AMEND THE INDIAN HEALTH 
CARE IMPROVEMENT ACT TO ESTABLISH AN URBAN INDIAN ORGANIZATION 
CONFER POLICY FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, 
  ``URBAN INDIAN HEALTH CONFER ACT''; H.R. 1240, TO TRANSFER 
 ADMINISTRATIVE JURISDICTION OF CERTAIN FEDERAL LANDS FROM THE 
  ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS TO THE BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, TO 
TAKE SUCH LANDS INTO TRUST FOR THE WINNEBAGO TRIBE OF NEBRASKA, 
   AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``WINNEBAGO LAND TRANSFER ACT OF 
 2023''; H.R. 1722, TO AMEND THE GRAND RONDE RESERVATION ACT, 
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``GRAND RONDE RESERVATION ACT AMENDMENT 
 OF 2023''; H.R. 2461, TO RATIFY A TREATY BETWEEN THE SAN JUAN 
SOUTHERN PAIUTE TRIBE AND THE NAVAJO NATION, TO PROVIDE FOR THE 
  CREATION OF A RESERVATION FOR THE SAN JUAN SOUTHERN PAIUTE 
   TRIBE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``SAN JUAN SOUTHERN PAIUTE 
TRIBAL HOMELANDS ACT OF 2023''; H.R. 2839, TO AMEND THE SILETZ 
RESERVATION ACT TO ADDRESS THE HUNTING, FISHING, TRAPPING, AND 
 ANIMAL GATHERING RIGHTS OF THE CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF SILETZ 
 INDIANS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; AND H.R. 3371, TO DIRECT THE 
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO COMPLETE ALL ACTIONS NECESSARY FOR 
CERTAIN LAND TO BE HELD IN RESTRICTED FEE STATUS BY THE OGLALA 
   SIOUX TRIBE AND CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, AND FOR OTHER 
  PURPOSES, ``WOUNDED KNEE MASSACRE MEMORIAL AND SACRED SITE 
                             ACT''

                              ----------                              


                        Wednesday, June 7, 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 10:07 a.m. in 
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Harriet M. 
Hageman [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

    Present: Representatives Hageman, LaMalfa, Gonzalez-Colon, 
Moylan, Westerman; Leger Fernandez, and Grijalva
    Also present: Representatives Crane, Feenstra, Johnson; 
Hoyle, and Salinas.

    Ms. Hageman. The Subcommittee on Indian and Insular Affairs 
will come to order.
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a 
recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
    The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on six 
bills: H.R. 630; H.R. 1240; H.R. 1722; H.R. 2461; H.R. 2839; 
and H.R. 3371.
    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 gentlewomen from Oregon, 
Ms. Hoyle and Ms. Salinas; the gentleman from South Dakota, Mr. 
Johnson; the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Feenstra; and the 
gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Crane, 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, the Subcommittee is meeting to consider 
six bills.
    H.R. 630, the Urban Indian Health Act, would require all 
agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services, or 
HHS, to establish an urban organization, or UIO, and confer 
policy. Currently, only the Indian Health Service is required 
to confer with UIOs, while other agencies of HHS only are 
required to consult with the tribes.
    Second, H.R. 1240, the Winnebago Land Transfer Act of 2023, 
would provide for the administrative transfer of jurisdiction 
of approximately 1,600 acres of land in Iowa on the Nebraskan 
border from the Army Corps of Engineers to the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs to be held in trust for the Winnebago Tribe of 
Nebraska. This would return land to the Tribe that was seized 
by the Army Corps of Engineers in the 1970s for a recreation 
project that was never completed.
    Third, H.R. 1722, the Grand Ronde Reservation Act Amendment 
of 2023, would amend the Grand Ronde Reservation Act to reflect 
that the Grand Ronde Tribe's extinguishment of land claims 
against the United States only applies to an 84-acre parcel of 
land known as the Thompson Strip. The bill also includes a 
gaming prohibition on any future land that the Tribe may be 
awarded as part of a land claims settlement, and prohibits the 
use of money received as part of a land claims settlement to 
purchase land for gaming purposes.
    Fourth, H.R. 2461, the San Juan Southern Paiute Tribal 
Homelands Act, would establish an approximate 5,400-acre 
reservation for the San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe from lands 
that are currently a part of the Navajo Nation's reservation in 
Arizona. The San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe has historically 
lived in southern Utah and northern Arizona, and shared lands 
with the Navajo Nation, the Hopi Tribe, and other tribes that 
lived and transversed the area.
    However, their traditional homelands were added to the 
Navajo Reservation in 1922 and 1934. The San Juan Southern 
Paiute Tribe have continued to live on their traditional 
homelands since then, and they are the only federally 
recognized tribe in Arizona to not have a land base.
    After litigation was instigated regarding land between the 
Tribes, in 2000 both the San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe and 
Navajo Nation signed a treaty that resolved this land issue, 
designating land for a reservation for the San Juan Southern 
Paiute Tribe, clarifying the sovereign authority of both 
Tribes, and resolving other mutual concerns.
    Fifth, H.R. 2839 would amend the Siletz Reservation Act to 
allow the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians and the state 
of Oregon mutually to amend or replace the current consent 
decree governing the Tribe's hunting, fishing, trapping, and 
animal gathering rights. The Siletz Tribe is the only Oregon 
tribe that has a judicially mandated consent decree governing 
their hunting and fishing rights for their traditional areas, 
unlike other treaty tribes. This legislation would allow for a 
process by which the state of Oregon and the Siletz to 
negotiate and amend or replace the current agreement.
    And last on our agenda, H.R. 3371, the Wounded Knee 
Memorial and Sacred Site Act, would place approximately 40 
acres of fee land within the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation into 
restricted fee status jointly for the Oglala Sioux Tribe and 
the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe. The land would be held in 
Memorial as the sacred site for the Indian people killed in the 
1890 Wounded Knee massacre.
    I am hopeful we can all work together to continue to ensure 
the legislation considered today gains support and moves 
through the legislative process.
    I thank the witnesses for being here today, and look 
forward to your testimony.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Hageman follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Harriet M. Hageman, a Representative in 
                   Congress from the State of Wyoming
    Today the subcommittee is meeting today to consider six bills.

    H.R. 630, the Urban Indian Health Confer Act, would require all 
agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, to 
establish an Urban Indian Organization, or UIO, confer policy.
    Currently, only the Indian Health Service is required to confer 
with UIOs, while other agencies of HHS only are required to consult 
with tribes.
    Second, H.R. 1240, the Winnebago Land Transfer Act of 2023, would 
provide for an administrative transfer of jurisdiction of approximately 
1,600 acres of land in Iowa on the Nebraskan border from the Army Corps 
of Engineers to the Bureau of Indian Affairs to be held in trust for 
the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska.
    This would return land to the tribe that was seized by Army Corps 
of Engineers in the 1970s for a recreation project that was never 
completed.
    Third, H.R. 1722, the Grand Ronde Reservation Act Amendment of 
2023, would amend the Grand Ronde Reservation Act to reflect that the 
Grand Ronde tribe's extinguishment of land claims against the United 
States only applies to an 84-acre parcel of land, known as the Thompson 
Strip.
    The bill also includes a gaming prohibition on any future land that 
the tribe may be awarded as part of a land claims settlement and 
prohibits the use of money received as part of a land claim settlement 
to purchase land for gaming purposes.
    Fourth, H.R. 2461, the San Juan Southern Paiute Tribal Homelands 
Act, would establish an approximate 5,400-acre reservation for the San 
Juan Southern Paiute Tribe from lands that are currently a part of the 
Navajo Nation's reservation in Arizona.
    The San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe has historically lived in 
southern Utah and northern Arizona, and shared lands with the Navajo 
Nation, the Hopi tribe, and other tribes that lived and transverse the 
area. However, their traditional homelands we added to the Navajo 
reservation in 1922 and 1934. The San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe have 
continued to live on their traditional homelands since then, and they 
are the only federally recognized tribe in Arizona to not have a land 
base.
    After litigation was instigated regarding land between the tribes, 
in 2000 both the San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe and Navajo Nation 
signed a treaty that resolved this land issue, designating land for a 
reservation for the San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe, clarifying the 
sovereign authority of both tribes, and resolving other mutual 
concerns.
    Fifth, H.R. 2839, would amend the Siletz Reservation Act to allow 
the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians and the State of Oregon 
mutually agree to amend or replace the current consent decree governing 
the tribe's hunting, fishing, trapping, and animal gathering rights.
    The Siletz tribe is one of the Oregon tribes that has a judicially 
mandated consent decree governing their hunting and fishing rights for 
their traditional areas, unlike other treaty tribes. This legislation 
would allow for a process by which the state of Oregon and the Siletz 
to negotiate and amend or replace the current agreement.
    Last on our agenda, H.R. 3371, the Wounded Knee Memorial and Sacred 
Site Act, would place approximately 40-acres of fee land within the 
Pine Ridge reservation into restricted fee status jointly for the 
Oglala Sioux Tribe and Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe. The land would be 
held in memorial as a sacred site for the Indian people killed in the 
1890 Wounded Knee Massacre.
    I'm hopeful we can all work together to continue to ensure the 
legislation considered today gains support and moves through the 
legislative process.

                                 ______
                                 

    Ms. Hageman. The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Minority 
Member for any statement.

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

    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you so very much, Madam Chair. 
Thank you to everybody who has come who is sitting in the 
hearing room today. And I would like to say we have standing 
room only, which is a great thing, because it shows the 
interest in these bills.
    Much of the legislation that we deal with on this 
Subcommittee and over the many cycles is really looking at the 
injustice and the harms that have been imposed on Indian tribes 
and Indian people through our history. We have unjustly 
targeted American Indians and unjustly taken their lands. The 
harm has come in many forms, whether it be survey and language 
errors to the outright taking and breaking of treaties to 
restrictions on subsistence rights.
    And the bills we are hearing today are going to help us 
remedy some of those injustice, because our goal should always 
be to better promote self-determination and self-governance, 
which you cannot do if you do not have access to the land which 
is culturally and economically important to you, or on the case 
of the Indian Health Services and the cooperation, if there is 
not communication with the agencies that serves the Native 
Americans.
    I am proud that many of these bills we are hearing about 
today build on the work that this Subcommittee did last 
Congress.
    First, I will highlight Ranking Member Grijalva's H.R. 630, 
the Urban Indian Health and Confer Act. This bill would 
recognize and require that HHS confer directly with the urban 
Indian organizations about health care policies and initiatives 
that impact urban American Indians and Alaska Natives, just as 
IHS does. The lack of communication between HHS and the UIOs 
regarding the vaccine rollout was illuminating the real problem 
that happens when you don't have that confer and coordination 
policy. So, we are hoping that the direct communication will 
further uphold the Federal trust responsibility.
    H.R. 1240, the Winnebago Land Transfer Act of 2023 
introduced by Representative Feenstra of Iowa this year, 
relates to the fact that in 1970 the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers used eminent domain to take two tracks of land from 
the Winnebago Reservation. This infringed upon the 1865 treaty 
that had established the reservation. This bill would go back 
to honoring that treaty and returning that land.
    My colleague, Representative Salinas of Oregon, introduced 
our next bill, H.R. 1722, the Grand Ronde Reservation Act 
Amendment of 2023. When Congress passed a land transfer to 
compensate Grand Ronde for an 1800s BLM survey error, it voided 
the Tribe's right to bring forth land claims in Oregon. H.R. 
1722 would clarify the Tribe's right to bring forth those land 
claims in Oregon outside of the Thompson Strip.
    H.R. 2462, as we have heard about earlier, is the San Juan 
Southern Paiute Tribal Homelands Act, which was introduced by 
our colleague, Representative Crane of Arizona. This bill would 
ratify our treaty between the San Juan Paiute and the Navajo 
Nation to transfer land for the establishment of the San Juan 
Southern Paiute Reservation.
    And H.R. 2839, regarding the Confederated Tribes of Siletz 
Indians, which was introduced by our colleague, Representative 
Hoyle of Oregon, would restore the Tribe's Federal recognition 
it unfairly forced the Tribe to choose between subsistence 
rights and land. Ultimately, the Siletz Restoration Reservation 
Act left out those subsistence rights. H.R. 2839 would allow 
the Tribe to renegotiate their subsistence agreements with the 
state of Oregon to replace the current consent decree.
    Finally, we will consider Representative Johnson's H.R. 
3371, the Wounded Knee Massacre Memorial and Sacred Site Act. 
In 1890, the U.S. Army's 7th Cavalry brutally massacred over 
350 American Indian men, women, and children near Wounded Knee 
Creek. This legislation would take a parcel of land into 
restricted fee status for the Oglala Sioux Tribe and the 
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe.
    We must understand our history, especially when it is as 
horrific as the massacre was, so we do not repeat it. This 
would allow the Tribes to hold, maintain, and protect the 
memorial as a sacred site and a place of learning and 
understanding for all peoples of the United States and those 
that would travel to the site. Thank you for bringing this 
bill.
    These bills deal with only a handful of tribes, but their 
impacts are great, and the issues they address reflect many of 
the broader challenges that tribes across the country face. I 
thank the Chairwoman and the Majority for holding these 
hearings on this range of bills that highlights the work that 
we will be doing.

    With that, I yield back, Madam Chairwoman.

    Ms. Hageman. Thank you. We will now recognize Members for 
their sponsor statements. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Salinas 
for 5 minutes for a statement.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. ANDREA SALINAS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
               CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

    Ms. Salinas. Thank you so much, Madam Chair, and thank you, 
Ranking Member Leger Fernandez, for the opportunity to 
participate in today's hearing and to speak in support of an 
important piece of legislation that you both described quite 
well: H.R. 1722, that I introduced earlier this year.
    The bill to amend the Grand Ronde Reservation Act is a bill 
that will restore the ability for the Confederated Tribes of 
Grand Ronde in Oregon to raise land claims, rectifying a 
restriction that was included in a land agreement over what is 
known as the Thompson Strip. The Grand Ronde's problem that 
brings me here today is imbued with the troubling past of how 
tribes have been treated by our government, which makes me all 
the prouder to be able to say that the bill has the support of 
the entire Oregon delegation.
    The Grand Ronde Reservation was established in 1857, and in 
an 1871 survey of the Reservation an 84-acre piece of land 
known as the Thompson Strip after the land surveyor was 
mistakenly excluded due to a surveying error. And, like all 
other tribes in Oregon, the Grand Ronde was terminated in 1954, 
and subsequently they were restored in 1983.
    In 1988, Congress passed the Grand Ronde Reservation Act, 
and later that same year BLM discovered the land surveying 
mistake on the eastern boundary of the Tribe's original 
reservation. BLM arranged a land exchange with Grand Ronde, in 
which the Tribe would receive 240 acres of land contiguous to 
the present Grand Ronde Reservation in exchange for 
relinquishing their claim to the Thompson Strip.
    The 240 acres was also agreed to as compensation for loss 
compensation the Tribe did not receive for timber harvesting, 
since BLM had treated the Thompson Strip as Oregon and 
California Railroad Grant lands. While Grand Ronde received a 
greater number of acres than what comprises the Thompson Strip, 
the Tribe and BLM agreed that they were roughly equal in terms 
of compensation and value, including the value of timber 
production. The agreement required congressional action, and 
was included in the 1994 Native American technical corrections 
bill.
    At some point in the process, language was erroneously 
inserted that extinguished Grand Ronde's right to bring any 
further land claims in the entire state of Oregon, and not just 
around the Thompson Strip. No other tribe in Oregon is subject 
to this prohibition. And to the best of my knowledge, no other 
tribe has unknowingly been subject to such a restriction 
without actual involvement in the negotiation.
    Today, the statute is much broader than what was intended, 
and this long-overdue bill will rectify this error. And while 
there is limited documentation surrounding the legislative 
discussions in 1994, the Tribe's Congressman at the time was 
Representative Mike Kopetski, whose written testimony before 
this same Subcommittee confirms the Tribe's understanding of 
the intent of this agreement. His testimony only mentions 
relinquishment of claims to the Thompson Strip, and nothing 
more.
    To correct this minor but very consequential mistake, the 
bill before you today strikes the ``State of Oregon'' in text 
that states that the claims are extinguished for all claims to 
lands within the state of Oregon, and replaces it with ``the 
Thompson Strip.'' The bill is a carefully-written technical 
fix, and I appreciate the Chairwoman and the Chairman of this 
Committee for working with us to really find a path forward.
    We have further strengthened the bill language since last 
Congress to prevent the use of any land or financial 
compensation potentially obtained in a future agreement from 
being utilized for additional gaming.
    So, regardless of how we got here today, this amendment to 
the Grand Ronde Reservation Act is pretty straightforward. The 
Subcommittee has held a hearing on this bill for the last two 
Congresses, and it passed in the Senate last Congress. And with 
the bipartisan, bicameral support of the entire Oregon 
delegation, I look forward to moving this legislation forward, 
and to finally correcting this unjust error.
    Thank you so much, and I yield back.
    Ms. Hageman. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mr. 
Johnson for 5 minutes for his statement.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. DUSTIN JOHNSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
            CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA

    Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    A central part of the American experience has been our 
journey toward a more perfect union. It is, of course, 
important to celebrate the great days and the great places as a 
part of that journey, but I think it is, in many ways, even 
more important to acknowledge the dark days and the dark 
places. December 29, 1890 was most assuredly one of those dark 
days.
    As has been mentioned, on that day the U.S. Army's 7th 
Cavalry, while attempting to disarm several hundred mostly 
unarmed Lakota men, women, and children, massacred more than 
350 of them. The United States Army called this the Battle of 
Wounded Knee. Let us not use polite phrases to ignore the 
reality: this was no battle, this was a massacre. And 100 years 
after that dark day, the U.S. Government issued a formal 
apology, as was entirely appropriate, and is a good first step, 
but in and of itself is, of course, insufficient.
    Physical places and land matter. And on the site of that 
massacre, there was a trading post held under private 
ownership. And it was not a testament, it was not a 
commemoration of this sacred site and of that dark day. So, in 
an incredible act of leadership, in October of last year the 
Oglala Sioux Tribe and the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe came 
together to secure this 40-acre parcel. And I think now it is 
altogether appropriate for the Federal Government to step up in 
partnership to try to make sure that this sacred site is 
protected in the right way, and that the Tribes are given the 
tools they need to make sure that it is protected in the right 
way.
    Success has many mothers and many fathers and, of course, 
that is true for this bill, as well. We are going to be honored 
here in a bit to be able to hear from President Frank Star 
Comes Out, as well as Chairman Ryman LeBeau. They are 
descendants of those from Wounded Knee, and they are great 
tribal leaders. They and their councils have worked hard to 
make sure that this site is protected.
    Now, their predecessors also had a hand in this. So, of 
course, I want to thank Harold Frazier, I want to thank Kevin 
Killer for their incredible efforts.
    And finally, by way of closing, Madam Chair, we have a 
tendency to think about dark days like Wounded Knee as in the 
ancient past, and we focus so much on those who died, those who 
were killed, those who were murdered that day. But we also have 
with us today Cedric Broken Nose, who is a descendant, he is 
representing the descendants, and I think is an important 
reminder to us that this history wasn't that long ago, and that 
one of the reasons that it is important for us to honor this 
site is that there are still real, living connections to the 
terrible actions that were taken that day.
    I thank the Subcommittee for taking up, and Mr. Broken 
Nose, could you just raise your hand, thank you very much for 
being here, because we won't have an opportunity to hear from 
him later.
    But Madam Chair, thank you and the Subcommittee for this 
work, and I look forward to hopefully advancing this bill.
    With that, I yield back.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]
   Prepared Statement of the Hon. Dusty Johnson, a Representative in 
                Congress from the State of South Dakota
    Chair Hageman, Ranking Member Leger Fernandez, and Members of the 
Indian and Insular Affairs Subcommittee,
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the subcommittee 
today. I am here to speak on my bill, the Wounded Knee Massacre 
Memorial and Sacred Site Act. On December 29th, 1890, in the final 
armed conflict of the Indian Wars, the 7th Calvary of the U.S. Army 
committed one of the most heinous atrocities against Indians.
    In the late 1880s, a movement called the Ghost Dance swept across 
the nation. American Indians believed that this dance would bring about 
a renewal of Native society, putting a stop to being pushed off 
ancestral lands, starvation, and a decline of Native society. In 1883, 
Secretary of Interior Henry Teller referred to similar dances as ``a 
great hindrance to the civilization of the Indians.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Price, Hiriam. Rules Governing The Court of Indian Offenses. 
March 30, 1883. https://commons.und.edu/indigenous-gov-docs/131/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On December 15th, 1890, Sitting Bull and some of his followers, a 
few of which were believers in the Ghost Dance, were killed in an armed 
conflict with the Standing Rock Indian Reservation police, when they 
attempted to arrest Sitting Bull. Several members of Sitting Bull's 
band fled for the Cheyenne River Indian Reservation and joined Chief 
Spotted Elk's band, headed for the Pine Ridge Reservation.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Warren, Louis. The Lakota Ghost Dance and the Massacre at 
Wounded Knee. April 16, 2021. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/
americanexperience/features/american-oz-lakota-ghost-dance-massacre-
wounded-knee/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On December 28th, 1890, Spotted Elk's band--largely consisting of 
women and children--were stopped by the Army's 7th Calvary and made 
camp at Wounded Knee Creek. The next morning, troops began to disarm 
the Lakota. A struggle occurred between some of the Lakota and troops 
and a shot rang out. The troops then fired on the largely unarmed 
group, resulting in the deaths of approximately 350-375 Lakota Indians.
    On the 100th anniversary of this massacre, Congress issued a formal 
apology to the Lakota and expressed deep regret for what happened at 
Wounded Knee, South Dakota.\3\ In October 2022, the Oglala Sioux Tribe 
and Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe jointly purchased 40 acres of land where 
an old trading post was located, which was previously privately-owned. 
This land lies in the boundaries of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation 
and is believed to be the killing field.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ S. Con. Res.153. 101st Congress. (1990). Retrieved from 
Congress.gov website: https://www.congress.gov/bill/101st-congress/
senate-concurrent-resolution/153/text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It is my great honor to assist these South Dakota tribes in placing 
these 40 acres in restricted fee status through the Wounded Knee 
Massacre Memorial and Sacred Site Act. This bill allows both tribes to 
protect the land by prohibiting any development, taxation by any state 
or local government, and prevents the land from being sold without the 
consent of Congress and both tribes.
    We have an obligation to acknowledge our nation's mistakes and to 
work with Indian nations to right the wrongs of history. For the past 
six months, I have worked together with both tribes to introduce this 
legislation.
    I would like to express my gratitude to Former President Kevin 
Killer of the Oglala Sioux Tribe and Former Chairman Harold Frazier of 
the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe for their leadership in the purchase of 
this land last year. Without their efforts, we would not be able to 
have this important discussion today.
    I would also like to recognize a representative of the Wounded Knee 
descendants, Mr. Cedric Broken Nose of the Oglala Sioux Tribe, who is 
here today.
    Finally, thank you to Wounded Knee descendants, President Frank 
Star Comes Out of the Oglala Sioux Tribe and Chairman Ryman LeBeau of 
the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, for their teamwork and dedication to 
these efforts. I appreciate them being here today to speak on this bill 
and look forward to their testimony.
    Thank you again for holding this hearing. I look forward to working 
with the committee on passing my bill to protect this sacred land for 
future generations.

                                 ______
                                 

    Ms. Hageman. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. And the Chair now 
recognizes Ms. Hoyle for a 5-minute statement.

 STATEMENT OF THE HON. VAL HOYLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                    FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

    Ms. Hoyle. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    The Confederated Tribe of Siletz Indians should be able to 
hunt, fish, and gather on their ancestral lands, just like all 
the other tribes, almost all the other tribes in Oregon and 
across the country. The Siletz Tribe was stripped of their land 
and status in 1954 through the Western Oregon Termination Act. 
In 1980, the Siletz Tribe was forced to give up their right to 
hunting and fishing on tribal land to restore their Federal 
recognition. This restriction is called a consent decree. It is 
an unjust and racist policy that I believe needs to be changed 
immediately.
    My bipartisan bill provides the legal ability for the 
Siletz Tribe to renegotiate a hunting and fishing agreement 
with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. The Siletz 
Tribe has worked in good faith with the other tribes in the 
region to avoid contested areas, which is reflected in this 
bill.
    H.R. 2839 is about fairness. Siletz tribal members should 
be able to hunt, fish, trap, and gather like they have 
traditionally done for thousands of years. They should be 
treated as other tribes are.
    Now, the Siletz is one of only two tribes in the entire 
country that was forced to give up a sovereign right in order 
to have Federal status restored. The other tribe is the 
Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde community of Oregon. 
While the Grand Ronde are here to discuss a separate issue 
today, I am also an original co-sponsor of similar legislation 
to allow them to renegotiate their fishing and hunting rights 
with the state of Oregon, as well. I am hopeful that the 
Senator from the state of Washington will engage in a real way 
so we can work together to help make sure that we can remove 
the consent decree for the Grand Ronde, as well, and end 
Oregon's dubious distinction as the only state with tribes 
still bound by a consent decree.
    But today, we have an opportunity to remove the bondage of 
the consent decree from the Siletz Nation. And I am proud to 
sponsor this bill, and I urge the Committee to support this 
important legislation.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Hoyle follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Val Hoyle, a Representative in Congress 
                        from the State of Oregon
    The Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians should be able to hunt, 
fish, and gather on their ancestral lands just like almost all the 
other tribes in Oregon and across the county.
    The Siletz Tribe was stripped of their land and status in 1954 
through the Western Oregon Termination Act. In 1980, the Siletz Tribe 
was forced to give up their right to hunting and fishing on tribal 
lands to restore their federal recognition. This restriction is called 
a consent decree. It is an unjust and racist policy that I believe 
needs to be changed immediately.
    My bipartisan bill provides the legal ability for the Siletz tribe 
to renegotiate a hunting and fishing agreement with the Oregon 
Department of Fish and Wildlife. The Siletz Tribe has worked in good 
faith with the other Tribes in region to avoid contested areas, which 
is reflected in this bill.
    H.R. 2839 is about fairness. Siletz Tribal members should be able 
to hunt, fish, trap, and gather like they have traditionally done for 
thousands of years. They should be treated as other Tribes are.
    The Siletz are one of two Tribes in the entire country that were 
forced to give up a sovereign right in order to have federal status 
restored.
    The other Tribe is the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde 
Community of Oregon. While the Grand Ronde are here to discuss a 
separate issue today, I am also an original co-sponsor of similar 
legislation to allow them to renegotiate their fishing and hunting 
rights with the state of Oregon as well. I am hopeful that the Pacific 
Northwest Congressional delegation will work together to help make sure 
that we can remove the consent decree for the Grand Ronde Tribe as 
well, and end Oregon's dubious distinction as the only state with 
tribes bound by such consent decrees.
    But today, we have an opportunity to remove the bondage of the 
consent decree from the Siletz nation. I am proud to sponsor this bill 
and I urge this committee to support this important legislation.

                                 ______
                                 

    Ms. Hageman. Thank you very much. I will now introduce our 
witnesses for our first panel.
    The Honorable Bryan Newland, Assistant Secretary of Indian 
Affairs, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC, 
thank you for coming back. We appreciate you being here.
    And the Honorable Melanie Anne Egorin, Assistant Secretary, 
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC.
    And Mr. Newland, I have not had a chance to review your 
testimony because we didn't get it until fairly late last 
night. I will have a few questions for you, but we would 
appreciate getting that in just a little bit earlier so that we 
can make sure that we can engage in a very good discussion, 
because I always enjoy when you are here. I learn a lot from 
you, and I think that you are doing a great job. So, thank you 
for being here.
    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. We 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 Assistant Secretary Bryan Newland 
for 5 minutes.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. BRYAN NEWLAND, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, 
INDIAN AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, DC

    Mr. Newland. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member 
Leger Fernandez. Good morning, and I appreciate the opportunity 
to testify today.
    First, I want to apologize for the late submission of the 
testimony, and we will do better going forward. Thank you.
    We have five bills to address today, so I will stay within 
the confines of the time that we have. The first piece of 
legislation is H.R. 1240, the Winnebago Land Transfer Act.
    The Winnebago Reservation was established by the Treaty of 
March 1865, and in the 1970s the tracks identified in the 
legislation were acquired by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
through an erroneous condemnation action in eminent domain. 
This bill would transfer the identified lands from the Army 
Corps to the Bureau of Indian Affairs and take them into trust 
status for the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska. And the Department 
of the Interior supports this bill.
    H.R. 1722, the Grand Ronde Reservation Act Amendment of 
2023, addresses the Thompson Strip. And the Bureau of Land 
Management and the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde 
community entered into a land claim settlement to resolve an 
1871 survey error in which the 84-acre Thompson Strip was 
excluded from the Tribe's Reservation. The Tribe received a 
240-acre parcel from BLM in exchange for the Thompson Strip, 
and a 1994 Act of Congress made the parcel a part of the 
Tribe's Reservation and extinguished all of the Tribe's land 
claims in the state of Oregon. H.R. 1722 redefines the claims 
extinguished in that Act into a limited land claim 
extinguishment for the Thompson Strip.
    The filing of land claims is not the typical way to correct 
possible survey errors, and without compelling justification 
the Department is generally not supportive of reviving 
previously extinguished land claims.
    H.R. 2461, the San Juan Southern Paiute Tribal Homelands 
Act, pertains to lands within an area added to the Navajo 
Indian Reservation by a 1934 Act of Congress. In a lawsuit 
concerning the 1934 Act, a Federal court identified lands in 
which the San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe has an exclusive 
interest, and others in which it has a joint interest with the 
Navajo Nation. That decision was appealed, but that has been 
stayed since 1995 to allow for settlement negotiations.
    In 2000, the San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe and the Navajo 
Nation entered into a treaty to set aside lands for the 
exclusive use of the Paiute Tribe, and to address other 
governance matters. H.R. 2461 would ratify and approve the 
treaty, authorize, and direct the Secretary to approve and 
execute amendments to the treaty without further action by 
Congress, and the bill also requires the Federal Government to 
take steps to address water rights and perform accounting of 
water uses.
    The Department and I want to commend the Tribes for coming 
together to negotiate and approve a treaty as sovereign 
nations. The Department welcomes the opportunity to work with 
the Committee and the sponsors to better understand the 
implications of this bill, and ensure that it accomplishes the 
intended goals.
    The Siletz Reservation Act requires that a May 2, 1980 
consent decree entered into between the state of Oregon and the 
Tribe serves as the exclusive and final determination of the 
Tribe's and its members' hunting, fishing, and trapping rights. 
H.R. 2839 amends that Act to allow for the 1980 agreement to be 
amended or replaced upon mutual agreement of the Tribe and the 
state with certain restrictions. Modification or amendment 
would be requested by the Tribe or the state at the Oregon 
Federal District Court. This bill provides a vital step forward 
to allow the Tribe to come to a new agreement with the state 
that may permit the Tribe to exercise their traditional rights, 
and the Department supports this legislation.
    And lastly, but certainly not least, I am here to present 
the Department's views on H.R. 3371, the Wounded Knee Massacre 
Memorial and Sacred Site Act. In October 2022, the Oglala Sioux 
Tribe and the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe acquired approximately 
40 acres of land in Wounded Knee, South Dakota. This 
legislation directs the Secretary of the Interior to complete 
any necessary actions for the land to be held by the Tribes in 
restricted fee status. The use of the lands is limited by H.R. 
3371 to those outlined in the October 2022 covenant between the 
Tribes. The Department supports this legislation, as it aligns 
with the Administration's commitment to restore tribal 
homelands, and appreciates the chance to speak further and 
answer any questions on this bill.
    Madam Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to testify, and 
your patience, and I look forward to answering any questions 
you may have.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Newland follows:]
   Prepared Statement of Bryan Newland, Assistant Secretary--Indian 
                  Affairs, Department of the Interior
      on H.R. 1240, H.R. 1722, H.R. 2461, H.R. 2839, and H.R. 3371

    Good morning, Chair Hageman, Ranking Member Leger Fernandez and 
members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to present 
testimony regarding H.R. 1240, Winnebago Land Transfer Act of 2023, 
H.R. 1722, Grand Ronde Reservation Act Amendment of 2023, H.R. 2461, 
San Juan Southern Paiute Tribal Homelands Act of 2023, H.R. 2839, to 
amend the Siletz Reservation Act to address the hunting, fishing, 
trapping, and animal gathering rights of the Confederated Tribes of 
Siletz Indians, and for other purposes, and H.R. 3371, Wounded Knee 
Massacre Memorial and Sacred Site Act.
H.R. 1240, Winnebago Land Transfer Act of 2023

    H.R. 1240, Winnebago Land Transfer Act of 2023, would transfer 
administrative jurisdiction of certain Federal lands from the Army 
Corps of Engineers to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, to take such lands 
into trust for the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska (Tribe). H.R. 1240 would 
apply to lands on the east side of the Missouri River--specifically, a 
portion of Tract No. 119, all of Tract 210, and all of Tract 113 
located within Woodbury County and Monona County, Iowa.
    The Winnebago Reservation was established by the Treaty of March 8, 
1865, in exchange for cession of the Tribe's lands in the Dakota 
Territory. The Treaty of 1865 designated that the Winnebago Reservation 
would be set apart for the occupation and future home of the Winnebago 
Indians, forever. However, in the 1970s, the tracts identified in H.R. 
1240 were acquired by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers through an 
erroneous condemnation action and eminent domain. H.R. 1240 would 
rightfully restore the Winnebago Reservation boundaries, insofar as the 
tracts identified are concerned, and would be in keeping with the 
United States' promise to the Winnebago Tribe in the Treaty of March 8, 
1865.
    The Department of the Interior supports H.R. 1240. This bill is in 
line with the Administration's commitment to honor treaty rights, 
respect Tribal sovereignty, and support the right of Tribal governments 
to acquire land in trust in furtherance of their self-determination.
H.R. 1722, Grand Ronde Reservation Act Amendment of 2023

    In 1954, the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community 
(Tribe) was congressionally terminated, P.L. 83-588. Twenty-nine years 
later, Congress restored the Tribe's federal recognition, rights, and 
privileges with the Grand Ronde Restoration Act, P.L. 98-165. In 1988, 
Congress established a 9,811-acre reservation for the Tribe, P.L. 100-
425, and through subsequent amendments, the Tribe's reservation grew to 
9,879 acres. In 1994, the reservation acreage total grew to 10,120 
acres, P.L. 103-435 (1994 Act).
    After Congress re-established a reservation for the Tribe, the 
Tribe learned that an 1871 survey used to define the Tribe's original 
reservation boundaries contained an error, and that an 84-acre parcel 
known as the ``Thompson Strip'' was excluded from its reservation. To 
resolve this exclusion, the Department's Bureau of Land Management 
(BLM) and the Tribe entered into a land claim settlement wherein the 
BLM exchanged a 240-acre parcel for the Tribe's Thompson Strip. The 
1994 Act made that 240-acre parcel part of the Tribe's reservation and 
extinguished all of the Tribe's land claims in the State of Oregon.
    H.R. 1722, redefines the claims extinguished in the 1994 Act, 
turning the statewide extinguishment of the Tribe's land claims into a 
limited extinguishment for the Thompson Strip. H.R. 1722, also makes 
land obtained by the Tribe as part of a land claim settlement, 
including any land acquired with funds from any land settlement, 
approved by the United States ineligible for class II and class III 
gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. Sec. 2701 et 
seq.).
    The filing of land claims is not the typical way to correct 
possible survey errors. Moreover, without compelling justification, the 
Department is generally not supportive of reviving previously 
extinguished land claims.
H.R. 2461, San Juan Southern Paiute Tribal Homelands Act of 2023

    The San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe is a federally recognized Indian 
Tribe occupying lands within the Navajo Indian Reservation. Despite 
there not being a reservation for the exclusive use and occupation of 
the of the San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe, the Tribe has ``existed as a 
distinct community occupying a specific area from the earliest 
sustained contact''. 54 Fed. Reg. 51,502-51,503 (Dec. 15, 1989). The 
``specific area'' occupied by the San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe is 
within an area added to the Navajo Indian Reservation by the Act of 
June 14, 1934, 48 Stat. 960 (1934 Act). The 1934 Act defined the 
boundaries of the Navajo Indian Reservation and provided that the lands 
described were thereby ``permanently withdrawn from all forms of entry 
or disposal for the benefit of the Navajo and such other Indians as may 
already be located thereon.'' (emphasis added). In the 1980s, the San 
Juan Southern Paiute Tribe intervened in a federal lawsuit, Masayesva 
v. Zah, which the Hopi Tribe had commenced to determine its rights in 
the 1934 Act Reservation. The district court identified lands in which 
the San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe has an exclusive interest and others 
in which the San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe has a joint interest with 
the Navajo Nation. But the district court lacked authority to partition 
land to the San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe. This decision was appealed, 
and the appeal has been stayed since 1995 to allow for settlement 
negotiations.
    In 2000, the San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe and the Navajo Nation 
entered into a treaty (Treaty) to set aside lands for the exclusive use 
of the San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe and to address other governance 
matters. The Treaty would resolve their dispute from the Masayesva case 
and convey approximately 5,400 acres of land and associated water 
rights and water rights claims to be held in trust by the United States 
for the San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe. The Treaty also preserves 
certain access rights related to plant gathering and access to burial 
and sacred sites. Additionally, the Treaty provides for the two Tribes 
to share certain water sources. The San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe's 
water rights are not quantified as part of the Treaty and are subject 
to an on-going adjudication of the Little Colorado River basin. The 
Treaty requires ratification and approval by Congress.
    H.R. 2461 would ratify and approve the Treaty; authorize and direct 
the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to approve and execute the 
Treaty, including the surveying and marking of the San Juan Southern 
Paiute Tribe's lands; and delegate to the Secretary the authority to 
approve amendments to the Treaty without further action by Congress. 
H.R. 2461 provides that the transfer of lands into trust and 
proclamation of those lands as a reservation for the San Juan Southern 
Paiute Tribe is not a major Federal action under the National 
Environmental Policy Act or an undertaking under the National Historic 
Preservation Act. In addition to reaffirming and authorizing the Treaty 
articles on water use and rights, H.R. 2461 provides that the United 
States will take all necessary steps to quantify the water rights 
associated with the San Juan Southern Paiute Reservation for the 
benefit of the San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe. H.R. 2461 requires the 
Federal government to provide an annual accounting of depletions 
associated with the use of water on the San Juan Paiute Northern Area, 
and the depletions associated with those uses shall be accounted for as 
a depletion by the Navajo Nation for purposes of depletion accounting. 
The San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe is limited to no more than 300 acre-
feet annually from a combination of groundwater and water from springs 
and washes on the San Juan Paiute Southern Area until water rights are 
adjudicated.
    The Department commends the San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe and 
Navajo Nation for coming together to craft the Treaty and resolve long-
standing issues. We note that the water rights of the San Juan Southern 
Paiute Tribe as well as those of the Navajo Nation are the current 
subject of an ongoing, active adjudication. The Department welcomes the 
opportunity to work with the Committee and sponsor to better understand 
the implications of this bill and ensure H.R. 2461 accomplishes the 
intended goals.
H.R. 2839, to amend the Siletz Reservation Act to address the hunting, 
        fishing, trapping, and animal gathering rights of the 
        Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians, and for other purposes

    In 1980, the Siletz Reservation Act (Siletz Act), P.L. 96-340, 
established a reservation land base for the Confederated Tribes of 
Siletz Indians of Oregon (Siletz or Tribe). Section 4 of the Siletz Act 
requires that a May 2, 1980, consent decree entered into between the 
State of Oregon (State) and Siletz serve as the exclusive and final 
determination of the Tribe's and its members' hunting, fishing and 
trapping rights, and that the establishment of the Siletz Reservation 
does not grant or restore any rights beyond the consent decree to the 
Tribe or its members.
    The consent decree provides that the Tribe has limited locations 
and take amounts for salmon fishing and deer and elk hunting, no 
special trapping rights, limited gathering rights, and an option to 
obtain annual amounts of State-furnished salmon, deer, and elk. The 
consent decree otherwise prohibits Tribal hunting, fishing, gathering, 
and trapping activities except as authorized under Oregon State law.
    On April 22, 1980, the State, the Tribe, and the United States 
entered into an agreement that defined the Tribe's hunting, fishing and 
trapping rights. H.R. 2839 amends Section 4 of the Siletz Act to allow 
the April 22, 1980, agreement be amended or replaced upon mutual 
agreement of the Tribe and the State with certain restrictions. H.R. 
2839 limits the contents of any new agreement or amendment to not 
provide Siletz with an exclusive or primary take outside of the 
exterior boundaries Siletz Coast Reservation relative to any other 
federally recognized Tribe. The bill also restricts any new or expanded 
take of fishery resources in the Columbia River or in the Willamette 
River from its mouth to the top of Willamette Falls. Upon the State and 
the Tribe coming to a new or amended agreement, H.R. 2839 provides that 
the Tribe and the State may return to Oregon Federal District Court to 
request the modification or termination of the May 2, 1980, consent 
decree currently in effect.
    H.R. 2839 will provide a process by which Siletz and the State may 
negotiate to amend or replace the existing agreement defining the 
Tribe's hunting, fishing, gathering, and trapping rights. The bill will 
allow for Siletz to negotiate their rights to hunt, fish, and trap 
throughout their ancestral homelands. H.R. 2839 also provides a vital 
step forward to allow Siletz to come to a new agreement with the State 
that may permit the Tribe to exercise their traditional rights more 
fully as well as manage hunting, fishing, gathering, and trapping on 
their lands. The Biden Administration and the Department are committed 
to working with Tribal governments to protect and preserve Tribal 
traditional hunting, fishing, and gathering rights on Tribal ancestral 
homelands. To that end, the Department supports H.R. 2839.
H.R. 3371, Wounded Knee Massacre Memorial and Sacred Site Act

    In October 2022, the Oglala Sioux Tribe and Cheyenne River Sioux 
Tribe of the Cheyenne River Reservation (Tribes) acquired approximately 
40 acres of land in Wounded Knee, South Dakota. The lands are 
significant to both Tribes as more than 300 Lakota people were lost at 
the site in 1890. The Tribes acquired the land from private owners and 
plan to maintain the site as a memorial and sacred site protected from 
commercial development.

    H.R. 3371 directs the Secretary of the Interior, within one year, 
to complete and make any corrections to the survey and legal 
description of the land and any other necessary actions for the land to 
be held by the Tribes in restricted fee status. H.R. 3371 defines 
restricted fee status to mean that the two Tribes retain ownership of 
the land, the lands are part of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation and 
subject to civil and criminal jurisdiction of the Oglala Sioux Tribe, 
cannot be transferred without the consent of Congress and the Tribes, 
is not subject to State or local taxation, and is not subject to any 
law requiring the review or approval of the Secretary of the Interior 
for the Tribes to use the land as allowed by the covenant the Tribes 
entered into on October 21, 2022. The use of the lands is limited by 
H.R. 3371 to those outlined in the October 2022 covenant, which states 
the lands will be held and maintained as a memorial and sacred site 
without commercial development, and the lands cannot be used for gaming 
activities under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

    The Department supports H.R. 3371 as it aligns with the 
Administration's commitment to restore Tribal homelands. The Tribes 
will have more authority to honor and protect the Wounded Knee site.

Conclusion

    Chair Hageman, Ranking Member Leger Fernandez, and Members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide the Department's 
views on these important bills. I look forward to answering any 
questions that you may have.

                                 ______
                                 

Questions Submitted for the Record to the Hon. Bryan Newland, Assistant 
       Secretary--Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior

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

            Questions Submitted by Representative Westerman

    Question 1. Is the current statutory language that extinguishes all 
Grand Ronde land claims in the state or Oregon unique to them, or does 
that language exist in any other laws?

    1a) Are there other federally recognized tribes prevented from 
filing land claims against the United States?

    1b) Are there certain land claims that cannot be brought against 
the United States because of other legislation, like the Indian Claims 
Settlement Act?

    Question 2. Regarding H.R. 2461, does the Department anticipate 
there will be a cost associated with this bill, or are funds already 
set aside for any services, considering the San Juan Southern Paiute 
are already a federally recognized tribe?

                                 ______
                                 

    Ms. Hageman. Thank you so much.

    We are going to briefly interrupt the witness statements, 
and I am going to recognize Mr. Crane for 5 minutes for his 
statement.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. ELIJAH CRANE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
               CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA

    Mr. Crane. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Thank you for 
inviting me to participate in today's hearing, and holding a 
hearing on a most important topic.

    I want to take a minute to welcome President Johnny Lehi, 
Jr. to the Committee today. It is good to see you, Mr. Lehi.

    For those of you that don't know, I am a proud 
Representative of over half the tribes in Arizona. They are 
great partners in preserving American history and culture, and 
the San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe is no different, other than 
the fact that they don't have their own land yet.

    The Southern Paiute people have shared territory with the 
Navajo for more than 160 years. During the 1800s, the Navajo 
people began to move west into San Juan Southern Paiute 
territory, ultimately resulting in the land being annexed by 
the United States into the Navajo Reservation. However, they 
have always been a socially and politically distinct tribe. 
After more than a century-and-a-half of struggle, the Tribe 
does not have a reservation that is exclusively their own 
because of Congress' inaction to settle boundaries.

    In 2000, San Juan Southern Paiutes entered into a historic 
treaty with the Navajo Nation that would set aside 
approximately 5,400 acres of land within the Navajo 
Reservation, pending the approval of Congress. I introduced the 
San Juan Southern Paiute Tribal Homelands Act because Congress 
should not stand in the way of self-governance for the sake of 
maintaining overburdensome oversight and legalism.

    The bill is a common-sense solution we can all support that 
respects tribal governance, self-governance, and the will of 
the people. It does not expand the Federal state; it cuts 
bureaucratic red tape, and it preserves American history and 
culture.

    Our founders knew when establishing this country the power 
of government comes from its people. Understanding this truth 
will protect and advance freedom and opportunity for all. No 
one understands this truth better than President Lehi and his 
people, who have all been waiting on us in Congress to allow 
them self-governance. We owe them an opportunity to live freely 
in a land they call their own, like the rest of us do. I am 
happy that President Lehi gets the chance to highlight why the 
current status quo needs to change. I encourage you all to 
listen to President Lehi's counsel and co-sponsor this 
legislation.

    Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and I yield back.

    Ms. Hageman. Thank you, Mr. Crane. The Chair now recognizes 
Mr. Grijalva for 5 minutes for his statement.

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

    Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much for the indulgence in 
allowing me to speak to the legislation.
    First of all, Madam Chair and Ranking Member, let me first 
thank you for including three bills for my Democratic 
colleagues, including one of my own on today's hearing.
    H.R. 630 is a bill that passed on suspension in the House 
with bipartisan support last session, didn't make it through 
the gauntlet at the Senate as they were putting their final 
package together. It is substantive, it is non-controversial, 
and an extension of an existing policy that would apply to HHS 
in terms of conferring with tribal health providers and health 
centers in urban areas, where close to 70 percent of Indigenous 
and Native people live now and reside.
    I appreciate the opportunity, and the full statement I will 
enter to the record. Thank you very much. I yield back.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Grijalva follows:]
 Prepared Statement of the Hon. Raul M. Grijalva, a Representative in 
                   Congress from the State of Arizona
    I want to first thank the Chair for including three democratic 
bills, including one of my own, on today's hearing agenda.
    And let me welcome Ms. Francys Crevier with the National Council of 
Urban Indian Health and express my gratitude for her taking the time to 
be here with us.
    My bill, H.R. 630, the Urban Indian Health Confer Act, would 
require the entire Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to 
confer with urban Indian organizations (UIOs) on the development and 
implementation of policies impacting urban Indian healthcare.
    During the Termination Era and in efforts to assimilate American 
Indians into the Western population, the federal government passed the 
Indian Relocation Act of 1956 to relocate American Indians from 
reservations to urban areas with promises of housing and employment 
assistance. However, this was an unfilled promise leaving many American 
Indians left in cities with a lack of housing and healthcare and 
removed from their culture.
    Prior to the BIA Relocation Program, only 8 percent of American 
Indians were living in cities. Today, over 70 percent of American 
Indians and Alaska Natives live within urban areas.
    Following the Termination Era, Congress established urban Indian 
organizations to fulfill the much-needed role of providing healthcare 
services to the large population of urban Indians living and seeking 
healthcare outside of tribal jurisdictions.
    Currently, only the Indian Health Service (IHS) has a legal 
obligation to confer with urban Indian organizations.
    The Department of Health and Human Services' lack of confer policy 
with urban Indian organizations has served as a barrier for urban 
Indians in accessing health care.
    This was highlighted during the COVID-19 pandemic when urban Indian 
organizations were provided no notice regarding vaccine distribution 
until the deadline. This led to delays in urban Indian organizations' 
ability to timely distribute vaccines to urban Indian populations.
    My legislation would establish an urban Indian confer policy at the 
Department of Health and Human Services to ensure conference with urban 
Indian organizations for significant policy and initiative changes 
impacting urban Indians' health care.
    I am proud to sponsor this legislation, it is critical that urban 
Indian organizations are conferencing with the Department of Health and 
Human Services to ensure urban Indians are receiving the healthcare 
they deserve.
    I appreciate all the witnesses for joining us today and look 
forward to hearing their testimony and the consideration of this 
legislation.

                                 ______
                                 

    Ms. Hageman. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Assistant 
Secretary Anne Egorin for 5 minutes.

  STATEMENT OF THE HON. MELANIE ANNE EGORIN, PH.D., ASSISTANT 
SECRETARY FOR LEGISLATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN 
                    SERVICES, WASHINGTON, DC

    Dr. Egorin. Good morning, Chair Hageman, Ranking Member 
Leger Fernandez, and members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for 
inviting me to testify on H.R. 630, the Urban Indian Health 
Confer Act, and for your continued support for the Department 
of Health and Human Services' efforts to improve the health and 
well-being of American Indians and Alaska Natives.
    I am Melanie Egorin, the Assistant Secretary for 
Legislation at HHS, and my office serves as the primary link 
between the Department and Congress, including providing 
technical assistance on legislation to Members of Congress and 
their staff, facilitating informational briefings relating to 
the Department's programs and policies in support of policy 
development, and supporting and implementing legislation passed 
by Congress.
    In support of policy development, the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary of Legislation has provided technical 
assistance on H.R. 630.
    HHS is dedicated to enhancing the health and well-being for 
every person in every community in this country. Moreover, we 
are committed to affirming the relationship between our 
Department and American Indian and Alaska Native tribes for 
advancing connections, providing expertise, increasing 
resources, and partnering to improve the health and safety of 
tribal communities.
    The Department works in partnership with American Indians 
and Alaska Native tribal communities through a network of over 
687 Federal and tribal health facilities and 41 urban Indian 
organizations, or UIOs, that are located across 37 states and 
provide health care services to approximately 2.6 million 
American Indian and Alaska Native people annually.
    The Biden administration has prioritized efforts to address 
the well-documented funding gaps in Indian Country, which 
directly contribute to the stark health disparities faced by 
tribal communities. Tribal consultation is an integral part of 
this process. The long-standing recommendations of tribal 
leaders shared in consultation with HHS and IHS were used to 
craft budget proposals that secured stable and predictable 
funding to improve the overall health status of American Indian 
and Alaska Native people, and provide significant investments 
to direct health care services.
    HHS recognizes that we must continue to work in 
consultation with tribes and confer with urban Indian 
organizations and with our partners in Congress. HHS has 
committed to strengthening this relationship and enhancing 
coordination and collaboration across its divisions to address 
American Indian and Alaska Native health care access and 
service delivery within the context of each division's mission. 
Each division shares in the department-wide responsibility to 
coordinate, communicate, and consult on issues that affect 
tribal members.
    H.R. 630 would amend the Indian Health Care Improvement Act 
to establish a UIO confer policy for the Department. The bill 
would require HHS to ensure its divisions confer with UIOs in 
carrying out laws relating to Indian health care. HHS takes its 
responsibility to consult with tribal governments seriously. As 
such, HHS' policy specifically recognizes the unique political 
status of tribal governments, and it is upon this status that 
Nation-to-Nation relationships are affirmed through the HHS 
tribal consultation policy.
    The Department's tribal consultation policy facilitates 
collaboration between HHS divisions, regional offices, Indian 
tribes to assist with consultation, addressing many issues 
identified such as access to HHS programs and services. 
Although the unique Federal relationship with Indian tribes is 
based on a fundamental concept of Nation-to-Nation relations, 
statute requires the Indian Health Service confer with UIOs, 
which serve American Indian and Alaska Native people outside of 
their tribal lands. UIOs are a critical part of the health care 
delivery system for urban Indians, and HHS supports conferring 
with UIOs, as set forth in the Declaration of the National 
Indian Health Policy in the Indian Health Care Improvement Act.
    In 2014, IHS established the policy consistent with the new 
authorities provided through the Affordable Care Act. The 
policy serves as a guide for the agency as it seeks input from 
UIO leaders on urban Indian health matters. The IHS urban 
confer policy strives to ensure that urban Indian health care 
needs and priorities are considered at the local area and 
national levels.
    This policy has been used to ensure the highest possible 
health status for urban Indians, and the IHS is the only agency 
within the Federal Government to implement this formal policy, 
and it is a best practice and a critical partnership 
opportunity. HHS, through IHS, continues to implement its urban 
confer policy, as well as partner with other HHS divisions to 
improve access and quality of care.
    We look forward to continuing to work with Congress on this 
bill, and welcome the opportunity to provide technical 
assistance as requested by the Committee or its members. We are 
committed to working closely with our external partners, and 
understand the importance of working together to address the 
needs of American Indians and Alaska Natives. This partnership 
will advance the shared goals of improving services for both 
tribal members and the other individuals served by UIOs.
    And I am happy to answer questions. Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Dr. Egorin follows:]
Prepared Statement of Melanie Anne Egorin, PhD, Assistant Secretary for 
       Legislation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
              on H.R. 630--Urban Indian Health Confer Act

    Good afternoon Chair Hageman, Ranking Member Leger Fernandez, and 
Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to testify on 
H.R. 630, the Urban Indian Health Confer Act and for your continued 
support for Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) efforts to 
improve the health and well-being of American Indians and Alaska 
Natives (AI/AN).
    I am Melanie Anne Egorin, the Assistant Secretary for Legislation 
(ASL) at the Department of Health and Human Services. My office serves 
as the primary link between the Department and Congress. ASL provides 
advice to the Secretary on legislation and facilitates communication 
between the Department and Congress. The ASL Office provides technical 
assistance on legislation to Members of Congress and their staff, 
facilitates informational briefings relating to Department programs to 
support policy development by Congress, and supports implementation of 
legislation passed by Congress. The office also informs Congress of the 
Department's priorities, actions, grants, and contracts.
    HHS is dedicated to enhancing the health and well-being of every 
person and every community in this country. Moreover, we are committed 
to affirming the relationship between our Department and AI/AN tribes 
by advancing connections, providing expertise, increasing resources, 
and partnering to improve the health and safety of tribal communities. 
The Department works in partnership with American Indians and Alaska 
Native Tribal communities through a network of over 687 Federal and 
Tribal health facilities and 41 Urban Indian Organizations (UIOs) that 
are located across 37 states and provide health care services to 
approximately 2.6 million American Indian and Alaska Native people 
annually.
    President Biden has prioritized relationships with Tribal Nations 
that are built on respect for Tribal sovereignty and self-governance, 
honoring federal trust and treaty responsibilities, protecting Tribal 
homelands, and conducting regular, meaningful, and robust consultation. 
The President has also advanced an economic agenda that includes 
historic levels of funding specifically for Tribal communities and 
Native people. The Biden Administration has prioritized efforts to 
address the well-documented funding gaps in Indian Country, which 
directly contribute to stark health disparities faced by tribal 
communities. Tribal consultation has been integral to this process. The 
long-standing recommendations of tribal leaders shared in consultation 
with HHS and the Indian Health Service (IHS) were used to craft budget 
proposals that secured stable and predictable funding to improve the 
overall health status of AI/ANs, and provide significant investments to 
direct health care services.
    HHS recognizes that we must continue to work in consultation with 
Tribes and confer with urban Indian organizations, and with our 
partners in Congress.
H.R. 630, the Urban Indian Health Confer Act

    H.R. 630 would amend the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (IHCIA) 
to establish a UIO confer requirement for HHS. The bill would require 
HHS to ensure its agencies and offices confer with UIOs in carrying out 
laws relating to Indian health care.
    An integral component of the government-to-government relationship 
is our commitment to regular and meaningful consultation with 
Federally-recognized Indian Tribes. The importance of Tribal 
Consultation has been affirmed through an Executive Order in 2000 and 
Presidential Memoranda in 1994, 2004, 2009, 2021, and 2022.
    HHS takes its responsibility to consult with Tribal governments 
seriously and first established the Department's Tribal Consultation 
Policy in 1997, with multiple revisions since its creation, most 
recently updated in 2012 and evaluated in 2021. Each time the policy 
has been updated, it was in collaboration with Tribal governments, 
recognizing that HHS and Indian Tribes share the goal to establish 
clear policies to further the government-to-government relationship 
between the Federal government and Indian Tribes. As such, the policy 
specifically recognizes the unique political status of Tribal 
governments and it is upon that status that the government-to-
government relationship is affirmed through the HHS Tribal Consultation 
Policy.
    HHS has a long-standing commitment to working on a government-to-
government basis with Indian Tribes and in partnership with American 
Indians and Alaska Natives. HHS is also committed to strengthening this 
relationship and enhancing coordination and collaboration across its 
Divisions to address Tribal issues within the context of each 
Division's mission. Each Division shares in the Department-wide 
responsibility to coordinate, communicate, and consult with Indian 
Tribes on issues that affect Tribes. All Divisions are responsible for 
conducting Tribal consultation to the extent practicable and permitted 
by law on policies that have Tribal implications.
    The IHS Tribal Consultation Policy, updated in January 2006 (and 
presently under evaluation) was developed in consultation with Indian 
Tribes. The IHS Tribal Consultation Policy outlines that consultation 
with Indian Tribes will occur, to the extent practicable and permitted 
by law, before any action is taken that will significantly affect 
Indian Tribes. Such actions refer to policies that have Tribal 
implications and substantial direct effects on one or more Indian 
Tribes or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the 
Federal Government and Indian Tribes. The consultation process is 
triggered with the identification of a critical event, which is defined 
as a planned or unplanned event that has or may have a substantial 
impact on Indian Tribes or Indian communities, including but not 
limited to the development of new or revised policies or programs or 
funding/budget requests. Part of this process includes facilitating 
collaboration between HHS Divisions, Regional Offices, and the Indian 
Tribe(s) to assist with consultation and address any identified 
issue(s), such as access to HHS programs and services, that could be 
provided directly to an Indian Tribe(s). IHS has also developed special 
Tribal advisory committees to provide leadership, advocacy, and 
guidance to the Director on policy and program matters.
    Although the unique Federal relationship with Indian Tribes is 
based in part on the fundamental concept of government-to-government 
relations, other statutes and policies exist that allow for Federal 
consultation with Indian organizations and confer with UIOs that, by 
the nature of their business, serve Indian people and might be affected 
if excluded from the consultation and confer process. The IHS enters 
into limited, competing contracts and grants with 41 non-profit 
organizations to provide health care and referral services for Urban 
Indians in 22 states and 11 IHS Areas. UIOs are defined by 25 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1603(29) as a nonprofit corporate body situated in an urban 
center, governed by an Urban Indian controlled board of directors, and 
providing for the maximum participation of all interested Indian groups 
and individuals, which body is capable of legally cooperating with 
other public and private entities for the purpose of performing the 
activities described in 25 U.S.C. Sec. 1653(a).
    In March 2010, as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable 
Care Act, Congress reauthorized and amended the IHCIA. Congress added a 
requirement that the IHS ``confer,'' to the maximum extent practicable, 
with UIOs in carrying out the IHCIA. ``Confer'' means engaging in an 
open and free exchange of information and opinions leading to mutual 
understanding and comprehension and emphasizing trust, respect, and 
shared responsibility. HHS supports conferring with UIOs as set forth 
in the declaration of national Indian health policy in the IHCIA.
    In September 2014, the IHS established the policy on ``Conferring 
with Urban Indian Organizations,'' in the Indian Health Manual, 
consistent with the new IHCIA authority. The policy serves as a guide 
when the Agency seeks input from UIO Leaders on Urban Indian health 
matters. The IHS urban confer policy strives to ensure that Urban 
Indian health care needs and priorities are considered at the local, 
area, and national levels when implementing and carrying out the IHCIA.
    This policy has been used since its implementation in carrying out 
the IHCIA to ensure the highest possible health status for Urban 
Indians. The IHS is the only agency within the Federal government to 
implement this formal process, and it is a best practice and critical 
partnership opportunity. IHS continues to implement its urban confer 
policy, measure the level of satisfaction of the urban conferring 
process, and confer with UIOs when necessary to improve the process to 
bring about the desired results.
    We look forward to continuing our work with Congress on this bill 
and welcome the opportunity to provide technical assistance as 
requested by the Committee or its Members. We are committed to working 
closely with our stakeholders and understand the importance of working 
with partners to address the needs of American Indians and Alaska 
Natives.

                                 ______
                                 

    Questions Submitted for the Record to the Hon. Melanie Egorin, 
  Assistant Secretary for Legislation, U.S. Department of Health and 
                             Human Services

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

             Questions Submitted by Representative Grijalva
    Question 1. Can you please describe the current processes HHS 
agencies outside of IHS use to ensure that they engage with UIOs on 
programs and policies that affect urban Native health?

                                 ______
                                 

    Ms. Hageman. Thank you to both of the witnesses. The Chair 
will now recognize the Members for 5 minutes of questioning, 
beginning with me.
    Mr. Newland, I would like to visit with you about H.R. 
1240. And the question is, has the Department had any 
communication with the Army Corps of Engineers about this land 
being returned to the Winnebago Tribe? And are you aware of the 
Army Corps position on this bill?
    Mr. Newland. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have not spoken 
myself directly with anyone from the Corps about this 
legislation.
    Ms. Hageman. So, right now, you don't know what their 
position is?
    Mr. Newland. I have not heard anything to the contrary from 
our position. But no, I haven't confirmed that.
    Ms. Hageman. OK. With regard to H.R. 1722, would the gaming 
prohibition language included in H.R. 1722 prevent the Grand 
Ronde Tribe from being able to conduct gaming on land received 
in any further land settlement or on land purchased from 
proceeds of a land settlement?
    Mr. Newland. Yes.
    Ms. Hageman. And then, in terms of H.R. 1722, my 
understanding is that it clarifies that Grand Ronde would only 
have extinguished their land claims for the 84 acres of land 
which is referred to as the Thompson Strip. Is the current 
language that extinguishes all Grand Ronde land claims unique 
to them, or does that language exist in other Indian laws re-
establishing reservations or Federal recognition?
    In other words, are there any other federally recognized 
tribes prevented from filing land claims against the United 
States?
    Mr. Newland. Thank you, Madam Chair. There are a number of 
statutes that have extinguished tribal land claims with 
finality in other places. I can't speak to how many of them use 
the same type of language, or address tribes similarly situated 
to Grand Ronde.
    I will stop there.
    Ms. Hageman. OK, thank you for that.
    Ms. Egorin, outside of the IHS, does the Department or its 
agencies ever consult, or confer, or communicate with urban 
Indian organizations on HHS' ability to deliver health care to 
American Indians and Alaska Natives?
    Dr. Egorin. Thank you for that question. Yes, the other 
divisions at HHS do consult and work with UIOs as they would 
with other grantees, including CMS' requirement that, for state 
planning amendments, waivers, and other modifications to state 
Medicaid programs, the conversations with UIOs and tribal 
members occur.
    Ms. Hageman. OK. How can all of the HHS improve its 
communication with urban Indian organizations, even without a 
required confer policy? How could we improve that type of 
communication?
    Dr. Egorin. HHS looks forward to improving communication 
with tribal members, but currently works through IHS in a 
coordination role to make sure that we are looking across silos 
that often happen across divisions and have a holistic view.
    There are also regular interactions and communication and 
training that does occur for grantees across our divisions.
    Ms. Hageman. Do you have other ideas of changes that could 
be made in that regard to improve the communication and the 
ability to provide services to our urban Indian organizations?
    Dr. Egorin. We are always looking for ways to improve 
access and to improve communication, and we look forward to 
working with Congress for policy changes.
    Our teams across divisions continue to look for ways to 
make access for information about grants and about resources 
more accessible, whether that is improving access to grant 
trainings, whether that is information on our website, or in 
terms of other consultation.
    Ms. Hageman. In the final paragraph of your written 
statement you said, ``We look forward to continuing our work 
with Congress on this bill, and welcome the opportunity to 
provide technical assistance as requested by the Committee or 
its members.'' Are you aware of any changes that you would like 
to see to this bill? Or are you just simply stating that you 
are interested in helping us to make sure we can move this bill 
forward?
    Dr. Egorin. The Office of the Assistant Secretary of 
Legislation looks forward to working with Congress to make sure 
that the policy intent of the Committee and of Members is 
fulfilled in the legislative language. So, working with you.
    Ms. Hageman. All right. With that, I will recognize the 
Ranking Member, Ms. Leger Fernandez, for her 5 minutes of 
questions.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you so much, Madam Chair, and 
thank you for the testimony this morning. I think I will 
continue to have the conversation with the Assistant Secretary, 
the Honorable Melanie Egorin.
    Your testimony, both written and today, talked about the 
many ways in which there have been best practices, there has 
been policy. It has improved over time in terms of discussions, 
of inclusion, of conferring. And I think that the impetus of 
the bill comes from a sense that while there may be good best 
practices, that we want to make sure that those best practices 
actually become statutorily required, so that there isn't any 
slippage back as we move from one administration to the next, 
which we will do, right? That is the nature of democracy, is 
electing new, incoming presidents who might have different 
ideas, but that we create a good anchor for these 
conversations.
    And I think it came out of, as well, during the COVID-19 
pandemic, where HHS did not include the urban Indian 
organizations in those initial discussions on vaccine 
distribution, which led to a delay. Do you have a sense of what 
the vaccine rollout delays were compared to the vaccine 
distribution for tribal communities?
    Dr. Egorin. Thank you for that question. The pandemic 
provided a host of opportunities both within tribal communities 
but across our nation to think about how we are delivering 
health care services and how we were making decisions around 
access. And while there was some initial confusion about 
vaccine allocations, it was determined that UIOs could access 
both tribal and state allocations.
    With respect to your specific question on the time delays, 
I do not have that data in front of me, but I am happy to get 
back to you in writing.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. OK, thank you. And could you maybe 
opine on whether you think H.R. 630 would improve as we look at 
future vaccine distributions or responses to future pandemics?
    We really want to take what happened in these horrible 2 
years of suffering through this pandemic, and not just forget 
about them, but learn from them. So, what are your thoughts on 
how H.R. 630 could assist with that?
    Dr. Egorin. I think taking the lessons learned and building 
on them are important. I think having a centering function at 
IHS to look across silos to make sure that we are pulling all 
of the resources, with a unique lens to the tribal communities 
both urban and on tribal lands, is important. But there are 
always places for improvement, and we look forward to working 
with Congress if the intent is to sort of create a more 
permanent structure of conferring with government 
organizations.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you for that almost-answer.
    Assistant Secretary Newland, so many of the bills that we 
are considering today are about land acquisition. And sometimes 
I have heard from some of my colleagues that these small land 
acquisitions are not that important. Can you tell us why land 
acquisitions are important to tribes, and what they represent?
    Mr. Newland. Sure, thank you, Congresswoman. The connection 
between Native people and our homelands is really at the core 
of identity for so many Indigenous people. It is also the core 
of the trust relationship between the United States and Indian 
tribes.
    And we have administrative authorities at the Department of 
the Interior that Congress has empowered us to use to place 
land into trust. But legislation that addresses lands, like the 
Wounded Knee legislation, for example, I think it is important 
because it represents not only the Department of the Interior's 
act to solidify that connection and to demonstrate respect, but 
when Congress acts with the executive branch to take those 
types of steps, it really represents the commitment of the 
United States, both in recognition and respect of that cultural 
connection, as well as the trust responsibility.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you. And I think, for example, 
the Grand Ronde is an example of where in your testimony you 
said it was whole-hearted that we support this bill, but this 
is an adequate, and would indeed be a very definitive 
statement, about the desire to move those provisions into law.
    Thank you very much for your testimony.
    Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Ms. Hageman. Wonderful, thank you. The Chair now recognizes 
Mr. Grijalva for 5 minutes for questions.
    Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
    Secretary Egorin, the legislation referencing the 
conferring with UIOs that would apply department-wide to HHS, 
not just to Indian Health Services, a department-wide confer 
policy that would be looking at improving health, health care 
policies and priorities, as well as dealing with what you 
mentioned, the health disparity issues, the needs, response 
times, resource allocation, codifying into law, how would that, 
going beyond just IHS being the conferring agency designated to 
do that for the Department, how would it affect the whole 
department in terms of a department-wide codified requirement?
    Dr. Egorin. Thank you for the question, Congressman, and 
for your sponsorship of this legislation.
    The IHS conferring with UIOs as established currently 
really highlights and strengthens our commitments to timely 
action, increasing transparency for regular reporting, and 
improving the best practices, and these are some of the 
improvements that have been made under Director Tso's 
leadership.
    In terms of access to current services, I would like to 
highlight that, even without the confer policy, HRSA, SAMHSA, 
CMS, and CDC have all made significant investments in UIOs. 
Being able to make sure there is a department-wide policy as 
currently structured, with IHS serving as the coordinating 
function, allows both the conferring with the Department, but 
also making sure that there are not individual silos of 
conferring happening.
    Mr. Grijalva. I appreciate the comments about working with 
the Chair and the Ranking Member and their respective staffs to 
deal with looking at the legislation and potentially your 
recommendations regarding its effectiveness and how it can be 
more effective.
    But going back to the point that you had made about best 
practices, if IHS is the only division to confer with UIOs, how 
can the Department ensure that it is accounting for urban 
Indian health in any policy decisions that are made department-
wide without the requirement of codified legislation that says 
you must do this?
    And I mention that because times change, administrations 
change, initiatives change, leadership changes. In working on 
this legislation it was about providing security, a permanency 
in terms of that responsibility of conferring. So, how can you 
ensure, if it is not required?
    Dr. Egorin. Many of the policies and procedures that are in 
place by the other divisions require consultation, 
conversation, and coordination with grantees such as UIOs. So, 
those actions already occur when, for example, HRSA provides 
support for the 24 UIOs that are duly funded.
    Mr. Grijalva. OK, thank you.
    Secretary Newland, thank you for being here again. Today's 
agenda includes several bills related to land in Indian 
Country. The Biden administration has previously testified 
before this Committee in support of returning traditional and 
sacred sites to tribes. Can you speak to how the Department has 
worked with tribes in restoring these lands, identifying these 
lands, and responding to those urgencies that are coming from 
Indian Country relative to those two issues?
    Mr. Newland. Sure, thank you, Congressman, for the 
question.
    We have, both on the processing of land and the trust 
applications been, I think, increasing our efficiency, not to 
where people want, but we have been able to prove trust 
acquisitions, as well as co-management agreements, and then 
also through our proposed regulations specifying that 
protection of cultural resources and those lands is a purpose 
for putting land into trust, and making sure that it is 
explicitly included in that process.
    Mr. Grijalva. And Chaco Canyon and the withdrawal would be 
an example of that, in terms of protecting that sacred site 
that is sacred to not only the pueblos, but Indian Country 
across the nation?
    Mr. Newland. Yes.
    Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. I yield back, and thank you very 
much, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Hageman. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Hoyle 
for 5 minutes for questions.
    No questions? All right, thank you. The Chair now 
recognizes Chairman Westerman for 5 minutes of questions.
    Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chair Hageman, and thank you to 
the witnesses for being here today. A very important issue, and 
I am glad that we could have this hearing.
    Assistant Secretary Newland, H.R. 2461 creates a new 
reservation within the boundaries of the Navajo Nation for the 
San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe. The Hopi Reservation is also 
located in the boundaries of the Navajo Reservation. In your 
analysis, does the 2000 treaty signed by both the Navajo Nation 
and the San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe fully address the 
challenges of having a reservation within the boundaries of 
another reservation?
    Mr. Newland. Thank you, Chairman, for that question. If I 
could take maybe just a moment to kind of get to the answer, as 
it relates to the tribes we think that the treaty negotiated 
between the two sovereign nations reflects their best interests 
and their own assessment of that, and they would know better 
than me or they would know better than the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs about what will work for their relationship. As we 
exercise our trust responsibility, we always want to defer as 
much as the law allows us to tribes when they make those 
determinations.
    It presents challenges, to be sure. I come from a small 
land-based tribe, so I have no experience in my own life or 
previous work about how to address these issues. But in this 
job, the Department has a lot of experience working with tribes 
that have overlapping jurisdiction.
    Mr. Westerman. Has the Department provided technical 
expertise on H.R. 2461 and assistance to the tribes?
    Mr. Newland. I don't believe on this iteration of this bill 
that we have, and I certainly want to offer ourselves up to do 
that.
    Mr. Westerman. That was my next question. Can you commit to 
doing that?
    Mr. Newland. Absolutely.
    Mr. Westerman. I appreciate that. Let's move on to H.R. 
3371. In your estimation, are there any potential issues that 
are not covered by the legislation or the covenant between the 
Cheyenne River Sioux and the Oglala Sioux Tribes?
    Mr. Newland. I don't believe so.
    Mr. Westerman. What further information could you provide? 
And I think this maybe gets to Ranking Member Grijalva's 
question to make this the best legislation possible.
    Mr. Newland. We have provided technical assistance on this 
legislation, Congressman, with respect to the Wounded Knee 
site, and believed that it accomplishes the goals of the 
sponsor and the Tribes.
    Mr. Westerman. So, H.R. 3371 also places land into 
restricted fee status for both Tribes in South Dakota. Do you 
see more tribes seeking to place land into restricted fee?
    Mr. Newland. We have heard from a number of tribes who have 
expressed interest in holding land in restricted fee status, 
and that is a recognized form of land tenure in Indian Country.
    Mr. Westerman. Thank you. I will move on.
    Assistant Secretary Egorin, I have a question for you. In 
your testimony, you stated that HHS supports the current UIO 
confer process in place of the IHS. Are there specific concerns 
that HHS has about expanding the confer requirements beyond 
IHS?
    Dr. Egorin. Thank you for that question, Congressman. The 
current tribal consultation process is based on a Nation-to-
Nation understanding. The confer process is working with UIOs 
on health care issues that are specific, and increasing access 
and improving services.
    In terms of expanding beyond that, we want to make sure 
that all grantees have access to information and support they 
need, and that that work continues with a level of expertise 
and not being siloed within various divisions.
    Mr. Westerman. So, is your testimony saying that HHS 
partially supports the legislation, or does not support the 
legislation, or supports the legislation?
    Dr. Egorin. HHS looks forward to working with Congress on 
the policy intents, and to make sure that it meets the intent 
of this Committee and the larger body. We have not taken a 
position on the legislation as of yet.
    Mr. Westerman. So, you are yet to take a position on it, 
OK.
    Well, I am almost out of time, but I know I have traveled a 
lot around the country and met with a lot of tribes, and IHS is 
usually one of the first topics of discussion that comes up in 
my meetings. So, this is very important.
    Chairman, thank you, and I yield back.
    Ms. Hageman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And the Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Crane for 5 minutes of questions.
    Mr. Crane. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman, for allowing me to be here today.
    Assistant Secretary Newland, does BIA support H.R. 2461, 
the San Juan Southern Paiute Tribal Homelands Act?
    Mr. Newland. Thank you, Congressman. We support the intent 
of this legislation. And before we can commit to clear support 
of the bill, I just want to make sure that we understand the 
implications for the Bureau and our Administration.
    Mr. Crane. Secretary Newland, have you met with President 
Lehi before?
    Mr. Newland. Thank you, Congressman. I had the pleasure of 
meeting President Lehi just before this hearing, and I would be 
happy to meet with him further to discuss this legislation.
    Mr. Crane. Secretary Newland, are you aware of the historic 
treaty between the Navajo Nation and the San Juan Southern 
Paiute that originated in 2000?
    Mr. Newland. Yes, Congressman, I have read it myself.
    Mr. Crane. OK. Thank you so much. I look forward to 
following up with you on this issue.
    Mr. Newland. Thank you.
    Ms. Hageman. Thank you, Mr. Crane, for being with us today, 
Ms. Hoyle, Mr. Grijalva.
    I want to thank the witnesses for your valuable testimony 
and the Members for their questions, and I want to reiterate 
one thing that I did discuss with the Assistant Secretary 
yesterday, and that is that we must do a better job of 
providing health care to our tribal members in this country, 
and I encourage the Indian Health Services to take their 
responsibilities very, very seriously. We have to do better.
    I appreciate you being here, and I appreciate the 
commitment that you made to me yesterday in that regard. It is 
extremely important for everybody in this room.
    The members of the Committee may have some additional 
questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to 
these in writing. And with this, the first panel is now 
dismissed. Thank you for being here.

    I am now going to begin the introductions of our witnesses 
for our second panel.
    The Honorable Victoria Kitcheyan, Chairwoman, Winnebago 
Tribe of Nebraska, Winnebago, Nebraska; the Honorable Alfred 
``Bud'' Lane, III, Vice Chairman, Confederated Tribes of Siletz 
Indians, Siletz, Oregon; the Honorable Johnny Lehi, Jr., 
President, San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe, Tuba City, Arizona; 
the Honorable Michael Langley, Tribal Council Secretary, 
Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde, Grande Ronde, Oregon; 
the Honorable Ryman LeBeau, Chairman, Cheyenne River Sioux 
Tribe, Eagle Butte, South Dakota; the Honorable Frank Star 
Comes Out, President, Oglala Sioux Tribe, Pine Ridge, South 
Dakota; and Mrs. Francys Crevier, CEO, National Council of 
Urban Indian Health, Washington, DC.

    And I would invite all of you to come up to the table.
    [Pause.]
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. It is a little tight, but that is a 
good thing because we are covering a lot of bills today.

    Ms. Hageman. I want to personally welcome all of you to 
Washington, DC and to the Subcommittee on Indian and Insular 
Affairs. We are covering some very important bills today. We 
appreciate your time, the effort that you have made to come 
here, and your willingness to testify on these important 
matters.
    Let me remind the witnesses that under Committee Rules, you 
must limit your oral statements to 5 minutes, but your entire 
statement will appear in the hearing record.
    To begin your testimony, please press the ``talk'' button 
on the microphone. We use timing lights, and 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 there is Member questioning.

    The Chair now recognizes Chairwoman Victoria Kitcheyan for 
5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. VICTORIA KITCHEYAN, CHAIRWOMAN, WINNEBAGO 
             TRIBE OF NEBRASKA, WINNEBAGO, NEBRASKA

    Ms. Kitcheyan. Chairwoman Hageman, Ranking Member Leger 
Fernandez, members of the Committee, thank you for holding this 
hearing today. My name is Victoria Kitcheyan, I am the 
Chairwoman of the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska, and I am here to 
tell a story of our forced removal by the United States Army, 
our reservation established by treaty, and the wrongful 
condemnation of our lands by the United States Army Corps of 
Engineers.
    Today, the Winnebago people make our home on a reservation 
along the hills and banks of the Missouri River in Nebraska and 
Iowa. We have over 5,000 tribal members who I am honored to 
represent today. And I want to say that it is by no coincidence 
that we are here today. Our elders prayed for this day, and 
they prayed for the livelihood of the Tribe and the return of 
this land. And it is an honor that I get to be here to speak 
with each of you distinguished leadership.
    The Winnebago people originally from present-day Wisconsin. 
In the mid-1800s our people were forcibly removed from 
Wisconsin to Minnesota, Iowa, South Dakota, and finally, in 
1865, to the Winnebago Indian Reservation in Nebraska and Iowa. 
Our treaty promised that the land was set apart for the 
occupation and future home of the Winnebago forever.
    A Winnebago delegation recently visited the National 
Archives, and we actually got to see these treaties. I want to 
tell you that it was an incredibly powerful, humbling 
experience to see the markings of my ancestors that made 
commitments to move to this land in Nebraska and to uphold 
their promise. So, I just want to share that with you. There is 
something that took place, and I am here to see it through.
    Unfortunately, the United States did not live up to their 
promise. After enduring a history of removals, a portion of the 
reservation reserved by treaty was still taken from us as 
recently as 1970, 53 years ago. At that time, the Army Corps 
began condemning lands up and down the Missouri River, 
including our lands reserved by treaty, which was then broken. 
In 1970, the Army Corps illegally, improperly condemned 2,000 
acres of land. The Corps filed two condemnation proceedings, 
one in Nebraska and one in Iowa.
    As trustee, the United States should have defended the 
Tribe in these proceedings, but because the Army Corps is a 
Federal entity, they could not defend the Tribe. The Tribe had 
to defend its own interests in multiple lawsuits, in multiple 
states, in multiple courts on extremely short notice with 
limited resources. Our Chairman at the time, Louis Larose, 
tells an account of the Tribe having to find an attorney in one 
day.
    The Tribe initially lost in both courts. When the Tribe 
appealed to the Federal Court of Appeals, the Tribe prevailed 
in the lawsuit in Nebraska. The Court of Appeals found that the 
Army Corps did not have the congressional authorization to 
condemn our reservation lands. The Tribe also appealed the Iowa 
case to the Federal Court of Appeals. After years of 
litigation, the 8th Circuit found that the condemnation was 
illegal, but the court did not have the authority to tell the 
Army Corps to return the land because of res judicata.
    But I want to share that the Winnebagos, we never give up. 
And over these 50 years we have had many conversations with our 
local county and state partners, and it has taken decades 
trying to find redress. We have met with Monona and Woodbury 
County. They take no issue. We have met with the Iowa DNR, who 
manages the land through a license agreement with the Army 
Corps of Engineers. They take no issue. And we have also met 
with the Army Corps of Engineers, and they worked with the Iowa 
DNR to insert a provision in their license agreement that 
anticipates this bill passing, and that the return of that 
land, they wouldn't then have to revisit their license 
agreement. So, we have put much work into the stakeholders, and 
we want to assure that we are ready to take this land back.
    I just want to say we are just committed to this and the 
Land Transfer Act that was introduced to restore these lands.
    We are incredibly thankful to the bipartisan support that 
it has received from our bipartisan sponsor and original co-
sponsors, specifically Representative Randy Feenstra, our 
Congressman on the Iowa side, where this land is located; 
Representative Sharice Davids, a member of our sister Tribe, 
the Ho-Chunk Nation; Representative Mike Flood; Representative 
Zach Nunn; and Representative Adrian Smith.
    We are grateful that the Department of the Interior also 
supports our legislation. The bill would transfer the former 
reservation lands from the Army back to the Corps and held in 
trust. The land in the bill is mostly woodland and marsh along 
the Iowa side of the Missouri River, and mostly recreational 
hunting-fishing ground. Once restored, the Winnebago Wildlife 
and Parks intends to manage this land, as they do all our land.
    The Department has the experience, expertise, and resources 
to regulate recreational and conservation activities on that 
land, and have done things to create easier access by updating 
their website and such. The Tribe does not plan to make much 
change to the conservation measures that are in place now by 
the Army Corps and the Iowa DNR.

    Upon passage of our legislation, we hope the Army Corps 
will make timely priority to give this back to us.

    Councilman Louis Larose was the chairman 50 years ago, and 
he is currently serving with us, and I hope he is watching, 
because I am here to carry his work forward. And our homeland 
is a livelihood of our community, of our Tribe, and of all 
American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians. And 
this legislation is a prime example and an opportunity for 
things to be made right, and the Congress must do everything it 
can to protect the homelands of Indian people.

    So, we thank you for your support on this legislation. It 
is time for Congress to pass this Act and the Winnebagos stand 
ready to preserve this land in the name of our ancestors and 
all those that moved to Nebraska under harsh conditions and 
made a home and a future for the people. And I hope that once 
this bill passes, that the young people see that we have a 
place on this land, and we have an opportunity to make it the 
best it can be as Winnebagos, as citizens. And I just hope that 
we can come together on this.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Kitcheyan follows:]
 Prepared Statement of Victoria Kitcheyan, Chairwoman, Winnebago Tribe 
                              of Nebraska
         on H.R. 1240--The Winnebago Land Transfer Act of 2023

    Chairwoman Hageman, Ranking Member Leger Fernandez and Members of 
the Committee, thank you for holding this important hearing today.
    My name is Victoria Kitcheyan, and I am the Chairwoman of the 
Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska. I am here to tell our story of forced 
removals by the United States Army, our reservation that was 
established by treaty along the banks of the Missouri River, and the 
wrongful condemnation of our lands by the United States Army Corps of 
Engineers.
    Today, the Winnebagos make our home on a reservation along the 
hills and banks of the Missouri River in Northeastern Nebraska and 
Northwestern Iowa. We have over 5,000 tribal members and tribal 
enterprises that employ thousands of employees in Nebraska and Iowa and 
around the world.
    The Winnebago people are originally from present-day Wisconsin. In 
the mid-1800s, our people were forcibly removed by the United States 
Army from Wisconsin to Minnesota, Iowa, South Dakota, and finally in 
1865 to the Winnebago Indian Reservation in Nebraska and Iowa. Our 
treaty promised that land was ``set apart for the occupation and future 
home of the Winnebago Indians, forever . . ..'' I will say that again--
Forever.
    Unfortunately, the United States did not live up to this promise. 
After enduring a history of removals, a portion of our land, reserved 
by treaty, was still taken from us as recently as 1970--only 53 years 
ago. At that time, the U.S. Army Corps began condemning lands along the 
Missouri River including our lands reserved by treaty, which was then 
broken.
    In 1970, the Army Corps improperly and illegally condemned almost 
2,000 acres of land of our reservation in Iowa and Nebraska. The Corps 
filed two condemnation proceedings against the Tribe, one in Iowa and 
one in Nebraska. As trustee, the U.S. should defend the Tribe as part 
of its trust responsibility for our land. However, because the Army 
Corps itself is a federal entity, the U.S. could not defend the Tribe's 
interests. The Tribe had to defend its own interests in multiple 
lawsuits, in multiple states, in multiple courts, on extremely short 
notice and with limited resources. One of our councilmen at the time, 
Louis ``Louie'' Larose, tells an account that the Tribe only had one 
day get a lawyer to defend its lands.
    The Tribe initially lost in both courts. When the Tribe appealed to 
the federal Court of Appeals, the Tribe prevailed in its lawsuit in 
Nebraska. The Appeals Court found that the Army Corps did not have 
Congressional authorization to condemn our Reservation lands.
    The Tribe also appealed the Iowa case to the federal Court of 
Appeals. After years of litigation and appeals, the Eighth Circuit 
Court of Appeals found that the condemnation was illegal, but the Court 
did not have the authority to order the Army Corps to return the land 
to the Tribe because of res judicata, the matter was already decided.
    To this day, the Tribe has been fighting for the return of our 
land. The Tribe has exhausted its remedies in the court system. After 
decades of seeking redress from the U.S. Army Corps and United States 
Department of the Interior (``Interior''), the Tribe was told to go to 
Congress. So we did.
    The Winnebago Land Transfer Act of 2023 was introduced to right 
this wrong and restore our homelands. We thank the legislation's bi-
partisan sponsor and original co-sponsors: Representative Randy 
Feenstra, our Congressman on the Iowa side of our reservation where 
these lands are located; Representative Sharice Davids, a member of our 
sister tribe, the Ho-Chunk Nation; Representative Mike Flood; 
Representative Zach Nunn; and Representative Adrian Smith. We are 
grateful that the U.S. Department of the Interior supports our 
legislation. Secretary Deb Haaland, the first Native American 
Secretary, has made restoration of tribal homelands one of her top 
priorities.
    The bill would transfer the Tribe's former reservation lands from 
the Army Corps back to the Department of the Interior to be held in 
trust for the Tribe. The land in this bill is mostly woodland and marsh 
along the Iowa side of the Missouri River and a recreational, hunting 
and fishing area. Once restored to us, the Winnebago Wildlife and Parks 
Department would be responsible for this land, just like all our land. 
The Department oversees hunting and fishing on 10,000 acres of woodland 
on the Nebraska side of the Missouri River. Hunters come from all over 
the country to hunt at Winnebago. The Department has the experience and 
resources to regulate recreational and conservation activities and 
ensure laws and regulations are enforced. The Department's website 
provides information on fees and regulations and offers an online 
process to obtain hunting and fishing licenses. The Tribe would not 
make much change to the conservation measures in place now by the U.S. 
Army Corps and the State of Iowa Department of Natural Resources.
    Upon passage of our legislation, we hope that the U.S. Army Corps 
of Engineers makes the timely and efficient transfer of the land back 
to us a priority. Only then would the United States right this wrong 
and ensure that our Tribe's homelands are protected, respected, and 
preserved.
    For more than 50 years, the Winnebago People have waited for this 
land to be returned. Councilman Larose has served on the Winnebago 
Tribal Council intermittently for the past 50 years. He was the Tribe's 
Chairman in the early 1970s when the land at Snyder's Bend was 
illegally condemned by the United States Army Corps of Engineers. He 
bore witness to the proceedings where our lands were lost. He sits on 
the Council today and has fought hard for the return of these lands. 
During his service to the Tribe, he has not given up on getting our 
land back, and we have never been closer to the moment when our land 
will finally be returned to the Tribe.
    Homelands are the lifeblood of American Indians, Alaska Natives and 
Native Hawaiians. Our legislation is a prime example and an opportunity 
for a wrong to be made right. Congress must do everything it can to 
protect all tribal homelands.
    We ask for your support in this important legislation. It is time 
for Congress to act and pass this bill to restore the promises our 
country made to us in a treaty--the supreme law of the land.

                                 ______
                                 

    Ms. Hageman. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Vice 
Chairman Bud Lane for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. ALFRED ``BUD'' LANE, III, VICE CHAIRMAN, 
     CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF SILETZ INDIANS, SILETZ, OREGON

    Mr. Lane. Thank you, Chair Hageman and Ranking Member 
Fernandez and the Committee for this hearing today. My name is 
Bud Lane, and I am Tribal Council Vice Chairman for the 
Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians.

    My Tribe is a confederation of bands and tribes that were 
removed to the Siletz Coast Reservation in the 1850s from 
regions all over western Oregon. Our original 1.1 million-acre 
Siletz Coast Reservation was established in 1855, pursuant to 
seven Senate-ratified treaties and one unratified treaty. 
Through most of our reservation history, our treaties were 
either not upheld, broken, or simply ignored. Our people hunted 
and fished for survival, even as our reservation was being 
systematically taken from us at the behest of state lawmakers, 
timber, and railroad interests. When reservation lands were 
allotted, they were also eventually taken. And through all this 
upheaval, our people continued to sustain themselves with our 
first foods.

    In 1954, Congress terminated Federal recognition of my 
Tribe. Our first ratified treaty had been signed in 1853. In 
the span of 99 years, from that treaty to the Termination Act 
in 1954, my people had gone from occupying the 20 million acres 
of western Oregon to the 1.1 million-acre Siletz Coast 
Reservation to becoming a landless people, not even owning our 
own cemetery in the town of Siletz.

    After 23 years and much effort, in 1977, Congress restored 
my Tribe's Federal recognition. While we were the first tribe 
in Oregon to be restored and the second in the nation, it came 
at a very high price for us. The Siletz's restoration effort 
coincided with the Indian fishing wars on the Columbia River 
and in Washington State at the time, where Federal courts were 
upholding Indian treaty fishing rights. The Oregon Department 
of Fish and Wildlife opposed Siletz's restoration, and insisted 
that the newly restored Siletz Tribe give up its hunting and 
fishing rights to be restored and to obtain a very small 
reservation.

    We were eventually forced to accept a severely limited 
hunting and fishing agreement with ODF&W, known as the Consent 
Decree, to get our Restoration Act and subsequent Reservation 
Act, which returned a mere 3,600 acres past. The consent decree 
allowed only 200 salmon, 375 deer, and 25 elk to be taken by 
the Tribe annually.

    When I was 22 years old, when the consent decree became law 
on April 22, 1980, my wife, Cheryl, and Darrelle Butler, both 
tribal members, and I appeared in Federal court that day to 
oppose the consent decree. Sadly, the agreement became law over 
our objections, and our people have suffered under its 
provisions ever since.

    In the 43 years since the consent decree became law, our 
people's ability to hunt and fish and gather our first foods 
has languished. My people have been treated like criminals in 
their own land for simply gathering our traditional foods. As 
far as we are aware, we are one of only two tribes that have 
this type of consent decree in place. All we are asking is to 
be treated equally as other tribes, and House Resolution 2839 
goes a long way to allow us to exercise our traditional rights 
more fully, as well as managing our resources within our 1855 
Siletz Coast Reservation.
    The Siletz Tribe made many attempts to change the consent 
decree over the years, to no avail. It wasn't until we had 
discussions with Governor Brown 3 years ago that things began 
to change. She said that it was unconscionable, the way the 
consent decree was forced upon us, and she would open a new 
dialogue.

    After a few years of negotiation, the Siletz Tribes and 
ODF&W have negotiated an equitable state-tribal agreement that 
addresses the Tribe's and the state's needs. Our Restoration 
Act in 1977 was supposed to make us whole again, righting the 
terrible wrongs of termination. Although it did several things 
toward that end, it never resolved the hunting and fishing 
issues that were totally one-sided, unaddressed, and left like 
an open wound. H.R. 2839 will go a long way toward finally 
healing those wounds after 43 years.

    The Siletz Tribe is deeply grateful for the support from 
our congressional delegation, particularly Representative Val 
Hoyle and Senator Jeff Merkley, to right this historic wrong. 
Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member, and Committee members 
for this opportunity to testify here today before you, and I 
would be happy to answer any questions you have for me.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Lane follows:]
     Prepared Statement of Vice-Chairman Alfred ``Bud'' Lane III, 
            Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon
        on H.R. 2839, A bill to amend the Siletz Reservation Act
to address the hunting, fishing, trapping, and animal gathering rights 
              of the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians

    My name is Bud Lane and I am Vice-Chairman of the Tribal Council 
for the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians. My tribe is a 
confederation of the bands and tribes of western Oregon that were 
removed to the Siletz Reservation. If still intact, this reservation 
would be the largest in Oregon at over 1 million acres.

    In 1954, Congress terminated federal recognition of the Siletz 
Tribe and all of its antecedent bands and tribes. In 1977, Congress 
restored federal recognition to the Siletz confederation. While we were 
the first tribe in Oregon to be restored, and the second in the nation, 
it came at a very high price.
Restoration by Congress

    Siletz' restoration effort coincided with the Indian ``fishing 
wars'' on the Columbia River and in Washington State--where federal 
courts were upholding Indian treaty fishing rights. The Oregon 
Department of Fish & Wildlife (``ODFW'') joined other states in asking 
Congress to overturn these court decisions at a national level. 
Similarly, ODFW opposed Siletz' restoration and insisted that the newly 
restored Siletz Tribe give up its hunting/fishing rights to become 
restored and to obtain a small reservation.

    The original discussion draft of a Siletz Restoration Act 
circulated by the Tribe in 1975 would have restored tribal hunting/
fishing rights. However, ODFW objected to this language and Siletz 
adopted neutral language that neither granted nor diminishes any tribal 
hunting right. This would have left any hunting/fishing right that 
survived termination unaffected. A year later, the House Report on the 
Siletz Restoration Act discussed this language:

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

    At this point, ODFW accelerated its opposition to the Siletz 
Restoration Act--and insisted that Congress expressly extinguish any 
pre-existing hunting/fishing rights Siletz might still have. This would 
have engendered national tribal opposition; and what ODFW didn't 
achieve in the actual Restoration Act, it achieved in the Consent 
Decree. Moreover, in 1976, ODFW even proposed alternative legislation 
that would have made individual Siletz Indians eligible for federal 
Indian benefits/services, but would not have restored the Siletz Tribe 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
itself.

    ODFW also objected to the restoration of a Siletz Reservation 
because of the State's fear of tribal exercise of sovereignty over its 
own land. The restoration act was eventually amended to eliminate the 
specific creation of a reservation for Siletz and did not itself 
restore any land to Siletz. Instead, the Restoration Act called for a 
two-year study followed by congressional action before a reservation 
could be created.

    With changes made to accommodate ODFW, Congress passed the Siletz 
Restoration Act on November 18, 1977. The final legislative language on 
hunting/fishing reads:

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

    Following congressional restoration, the Siletz Tribe adopted a 
constitution, elected a tribal governing body and began focusing on 
establishment of a reservation so it could assume full status as a 
federally recognized tribe.

    As parties negotiated the creation of a reservation for Siletz--the 
study of which was authorized in the Restoration Act--ODFW continued 
its demand for the extinction of the Siletz Tribe's hunting/fishing 
rights. It even suggested monetizing the Tribe's rights and having the 
federal government forcibly buy those rights and compensate tribal 
members.

    Other state agencies appeared to agree on legislative language that 
included a neutrality clause that did not grant any new hunting/fishing 
rights but left any pre-existing hunting/fishing rights for future 
determination, if ever. The Oregon Attorney General had determined that 
the Siletz Tribe probably maintained pre-termination hunting rights on 
at least the land it still possessed at the time of termination. The AG 
wrote that while the Reservation Act (as drafted) would not create any 
new rights, ``any pre-existing rights would continue to exist.''

    Based on fear of constituent backlash, Rep. Les AuCoin (D-OR) 
blocked passage of the Reservation Act until ODFW agreed with the 
extent of Siletz hunting/fishing rights, giving it a veto over those 
rights. Siletz' hunting/fishing rights were essentially terminated. 
This ultimately led to Siletz being forced to a near-total 
extinguishment of its hunting/fishing rights as a condition to 
obtaining a small reservation.

    The result was a hunting/fishing agreement between Siletz and the 
State of Oregon, with terms dictated by ODFW. It allows the Tribe to 
only take up to 200 salmon a year for cultural and subsistence 
purposes, and bans tribal members from exercising even these limited 
rights on the main-stem Siletz River because tribal members' presence 
and fishing might offend or anger non-Indian fishers. The agreement 
also allows for the Tribe's annual harvest of up to 25 elk and up to 
400 deer (minus the number of elk taken).
Federal Court Decree and Order

    Siletz Tribe v. Oregon (Civil No. 80-422 [May 2, 1980]) was the 
result of a ``friendly'' lawsuit between the parties, which ODFW 
insisted on to make the Agreement it demanded beyond challenge. The 
court order/decree enshrines the hunting/fishing agreement entered into 
between the State and Siletz Tribe (dated April 22, 1980). The original 
agreement was drafted by ODFW and makes it difficult or impossible to 
amend or overturn:

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

Siletz Reservation Act [P.L. 96-340 [1980])

    In addition to the court order/decree, the hunting/fishing 
agreement with the State of Oregon was also codified into the Siletz 
Reservation Act passed by Congress later in 1980:

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

    This provision impedes the Siletz Tribe from exercising any treaty 
hunting/fishing rights that it may possess and has never given up.

    Recently the Governor of Oregon and ODFW have agreed that this 
original 1980 hunting/fishing agreement is unconscionable and contrary 
to the State's policy to acknowledge and recognize tribal rights. The 
State supports the Tribe's efforts to overturn the 1980 Agreement and 
replace it with a more equitable arrangement.
Siletz Tribe's Legislative Request

    There are three components of the Siletz Tribe's effort to overturn 
its 1980 Consent Decree:

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

    The 1980 Siletz Reservation Act incorporates the Consent Decree 
into the legislation and states that it is the final statement of 
Siletz HFT&G Rights. This makes that legislation independent authority 
on the Tribe's HFT&G Rights, over and above the federal court Consent 
Decree. Therefore the Tribe needs to have this legislative language 
rescinded to overturn its 1980 Consent Decree. H.R. 2839 strikes the 
relevant provision from the 1980 Siletz Reservation Act, P.L. 86-340.

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

    The Siletz Tribe has already drafted a proposed replacement 
agreement--to be entered into with the State. This draft agreement is 
scheduled to be reviewed by the Oregon Fish & Wildlife Commission later 
this month. The agreement is generally limited to the historic Siletz 
Reservation area, and we have worked with other Oregon tribes to ensure 
their support of this agreement.

3. Vacating the 1980 Federal Court Consent Decree.

    Congress cannot directly overturn a previous federal court decree 
and judgment. The State of Oregon, the United States--as trustee for 
the Siletz Tribe, and the Siletz Tribe were parties to the original 
court decree and will have to approach the federal court together to 
vacate that decree. The Tribe is in discussions with the State and 
federal government to jointly petition the federal court to vacate the 
1980 Consent Decree under FRCP 60(b)(6) and believes the State and 
federal government will support that effort, but that is ultimately the 
discretionary decision of those governments. H.R. 2839 provides only 
that if such a petition is filed, the federal court can consider that 
petition without first having to address technical legal obstacles such 
as res judicata that might limit the court's authority to entertain the 
joint petition. This limited legislative approach has been upheld by 
the Supreme Court in the 1980 Sioux Nation decision.
Support for legislation

    In addition to the draft replacement agreement we negotiated with 
the State of Oregon, we believe that the State is supportive of this 
legislation and allowing a process for Siletz to determine its hunting 
and fishing rights.

    We have also had extensive government-to-government discussions 
with the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, the Confederated Tribes 
of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon and the Confederated Tribes of 
the Umatilla Indian Reservation regarding this legislation.

    We are insistent that any replacement agreement after enactment 
respect the rights of other tribes and not negatively impact them. To 
demonstrate that, Siletz agreed to bill language that contains two 
statutory limitations on our agreements with Oregon: 1) no future 
agreement with Oregon could provide Siletz with exclusive or primary 
take opportunity outside the original Siletz Reservation; 2) no future 
agreement with the State would include new or expanded take of fishery 
resources in either the Columbia River or the lower Willamette River.

    The Siletz Tribe is deeply grateful to the support from our 
congressional delegation--particularly Representative Val Hoyle and 
Senator Jeff Merkley--to right this historic wrong.

                                 ______
                                 

    Ms. Hageman. Thank you, Mr. Lane. The Chair now recognizes 
President Johnny Lehi for 5 minutes.

  STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHNNY LEHI, JR., PRESIDENT, SAN JUAN 
           SOUTHERN PAIUTE TRIBE, TUBA CITY, ARIZONA

    Mr. Lehi. Good morning. Thank you, Chairwoman Hageman, 
Ranking Member Leger Fernandez, and members of the 
Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to come here to 
speak today. My name is Johnny Lehi, Jr. I am President of San 
Juan Southern Paiute Tribe. I am here today to ask for your 
support to pass H.R. 2461, the San Juan Southern Paiute Tribal 
Homelands Act of 2023.
    The San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe is a small tribe located 
in Arizona and southern Utah, within the exterior boundaries of 
the Navajo Reservation. Our Tribe is an ancient tribe, but did 
not receive Federal recognition until 1989. Most people don't 
even know that the largest part of the Navajo Reservation, as 
it is named, was actually set aside by Congress for the Navajo, 
Hopi, and San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe in 1934. And while the 
Paiute Tribe has shared this territory with the Navajo Nation 
for more than 160 years, our Tribe was in this area long before 
the relocation or encroachment of other tribes, and prior to 
this establishment of any reservation.
    In 1974, Congress passed legislation permitting the Federal 
District Court to partition lands between the Navajo and Hopi, 
and to hear the claims of other Indians' rights and interests 
in the lands reserved in 1934. This litigation became known as 
the Masayesva v. Zah proceeding. Ultimately, in 1992, the court 
in Masayesva v. Zah determined that the San Juan Southern 
Paiute Tribe held a property interest in approximately 26,000 
acres of Navajo Reservation. Our Tribe alone appealed the 
Masayesva v. Zah determination, and that appeal has been 
pending since 1993.
    Together, the San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe and the Navajo 
Nation agreed to stay prosecution of that appeal while our two 
Tribes worked in tandem on a treaty that would resolve this 
continuous litigation. Ultimately, we negotiated a treaty to 
partition land between two Tribes. The Navajo Nation agreed to 
partition 5,400 acres as a San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe 
exclusive reservation. In exchange, our Tribe agreed to dismiss 
the Masayesva appeal as soon as the treaty was ratified.
    My grandmother, Mabel Lehi, is an elder and leader of our 
community. She negotiated this treaty with the Navajo Nation 
decades ago. My father, former President John Lehi, Sr., 
together with the former Navajo Nation President, Kelsey 
Begaye, executed the treaty on March 2, 2018. I have told my 
grandmother that I am here in Washington, DC, pushing for the 
treaty to be ratified. She told me that she hopes to see our 
people living on our reservation homeland before she leaves 
this place. I also hope she is here to see this dream become a 
reality.
    I am asking for Congress to support H.R. 2461, ratifying 
the land treaty between San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe and the 
Navajo Nation. This bill will create exclusive reservation for 
the San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe on lands located entirely 
within the boundaries of Navajo Reservation. Both Navajo Nation 
and my Tribe continue to stand by the land treaty and fully 
support H.R. 2461. Generations of the San Juan Southern Paiute 
Tribe have come and gone without ever seeing the creation of 
our exclusive homeland.
    Without an exclusive reservation, most tribal members 
continue to lack access to adequate housing, running water, and 
electricity. Far worse, we are treated like strangers in our 
ancestral homeland, denied access to essential services and 
utilities. H.R. 2461 will help alleviate many of these issues 
plaguing our tribal members, and afford them the opportunity to 
better their lives and strengthen our Tribe.
    I would like to express my sincere appreciation that this 
litigation is finally before Congress. A tribe without land is 
a tribe without a future. Land is what allows tribes to develop 
economic opportunities, generate revenue, and continue to pass 
down our way of life to our children and children's children.
    As you know, Congressman Eli Crane and, before him, 
Congressman Tom O'Halloran sponsored this litigation on behalf 
of two tribes. For their assistance and support we are 
grateful. Congressman Crane spent a great deal of time and 
effort to ensure this treaty legislation did not fall by 
wayside, as it has time and time again.
    Congressman Crane, we will forever appreciate your efforts 
to secure a small but exclusive piece of land for our people to 
call their own. With your help, this treaty, this promise the 
Navajo Nation and San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe made to each 
other 23 years ago can finally be ratified.
    Please support H.R. 2461, and help my people claim our 
small place in this world. Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Lehi follows:]
  Prepared Statement of Johnny Lehi Jr., President, San Juan Southern 
                    Paiute Tribe, Tuba City, Arizona
  on H.R. 2461, San Juan Southern Paiute Tribal Homelands Act of 2023

I. Introduction

    Good morning and thank you Chairwoman Hageman, Ranking Member Leger 
Fernandez and Members of the Subcommittee. I would also like to thank 
Committee Cosponsors, Congressman Grijalva and Congressman Gallego. 
Thank you for the opportunity to come here and speak today. My name is 
Johnny Lehi Jr., and I am President of the San Juan Southern Paiute 
Tribe. I am here today to ask for your support to pass H.R. 2461, the 
San Juan Southern Paiute Tribal Homelands Act of 2023.
    The San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe is a small tribe located in 
Northern Arizona and Southern Utah, within the exterior boundaries of 
the Navajo Reservation. Our Tribe is an ancient tribe but did not 
receive federal recognition until 1989.\1\ Most people do not even know 
that a large part of the ``Navajo Reservation,'' as it is named, was 
actually set aside by Congress for the Navajo, Hopi, and the San Juan 
Southern Paiute Tribe in 1934. And while the Paiute Tribe has shared 
this territory with the Navajo Nation for more than 160 years, our 
Tribe was in this area long before the relocation or encroachment by 
other tribes and before the establishment of any reservations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ See Indian Entities Recognized and Eligible to Receive Services 
from the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs, 83 Fed. Reg. 34,863, 
34,866 (July 23, 2018); Notice of Final Determination that the San Juan 
Southern Paiute Tribe Exists as an Indian Tribe, 54 Fed. Reg. 51,502 
(Dec. 15, 1989); see also, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Office of Fed. 
Acknowledgment, No. SJP-V001-D004, Summary Under the Criteria and 
Evidence for Proposed Findings for Federal Acknowledgement] (available 
upon request).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 1974, Congress passed legislation permitting the federal 
district court to partition lands between the Navajo and the Hopi, and 
to hear the claims of other Indians to rights and interests in the 
lands reserved in 1934. This litigation became known as the Masayesva 
v. Zah proceeding.
    In 1992, the Court in Masayesva determined that the San Juan 
Southern Paiute Tribe held a property interest in approximately 26,000 
acres of the Navajo Reservation.\2\ Our Tribe alone appealed the 
Masayesva determination, and that appeal has been pending since 1993. 
Together, the San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe and the Navajo Nation 
agreed to stay prosecution of that appeal while our two tribes worked 
in tandem on a Treaty that would resolve this contentious litigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Masayesva v. Zah, 794 F. Supp. 899, 929 (D. Ariz. 1992), appeal 
filed, Sept. 3, 1993 (No. 93-15216).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ultimately, we negotiated a treaty to partition the land between 
our two tribes. The Navajo Nation agreed to partition 5,400 acres as 
the San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe's exclusive reservation. In 
exchange, our Tribe agreed to dismiss the Masayesva appeal as soon as 
the Treaty was ratified.
    My grandmother, Mabel Lehi, is an elder and a leader in our 
community. She negotiated this Treaty with the Navajo Nation decades 
ago. My father, former President Johnny Lehi, Sr., together with former 
Navajo Nation President Kelsey Begaye executed the Treaty on March 18, 
2000.
    I have told my grandmother that I am here, in Washington D.C., 
pushing for the Treaty to be ratified. She told me that she hopes to 
see our people living on our own reservation homeland before she leaves 
this place. I also hope she is here to see this dream become a reality.
    I am asking for Congress to support H.R. 2461 ratifying the Land 
Treaty between the San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe and the Navajo 
Nation. This bill will create an exclusive reservation for the San Juan 
Southern Paiute Tribe on lands located entirely within the boundaries 
of the Navajo Reservation. Both the Navajo Nation and my Tribe continue 
to stand by the Land Treaty and fully support H.R. 2461.
    Generations of San Juan Southern Paiutes have come and gone without 
ever seeing the creation of our exclusive homeland. Without an 
exclusive reservation, most of our Tribal Members continue to lack 
access to adequate housing, running water and electricity. Far worse, 
we are treated like strangers in our ancestral homeland, being denied 
access to essential services and utilities. H.R. 2461 will help 
alleviate many of the issues plaguing our Tribal Members and allow us 
to better our lives and strengthen our Tribe.
    I would like to express my sincere appreciation that this 
legislation is finally before Congress. A tribe without land is a tribe 
without a future. Land is what allows tribes to develop economic 
opportunities, generate revenue, and continue to pass down our way of 
life to our children and our children's children.
    As you know, Congressman Eli Crane and before him Congressman Tom 
O'Halloran sponsored this legislation on behalf of our two tribes. For 
their assistance and support, we are grateful.
    Congressman Crane spent a great deal of time and effort to ensure 
this treaty legislation did not fall by the wayside as it has time and 
time again. Congressman Crane, we will forever appreciate your efforts 
to secure a small, but exclusive piece of land for our people to call 
their own.
    With your help, this Treaty--this promise--that the Navajo Nation 
and the San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe made to each other 23 years ago, 
can finally be ratified. Please support H.R. 2461 and help my people 
claim our small place in this world.
II. Purpose of H.R. 2461

    The San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe (``Paiute Tribe'') is a 
federally recognized Indian Tribe with a documented history pre-dating 
colonization. The Paiute Tribe currently lives in northern Arizona and 
southern Utah, on lands entirely encompassed within the external 
boundaries of the Navajo Reservation, meaning it is the only federally 
recognized Tribe in Arizona without its own land. Due to the Paiute 
Tribe's relatively small size and the remoteness of its territory, the 
Tribe has often been forgotten or pushed aside by both the federal 
government and other tribal nations.
    As a result, for generations, our people have endured a life full 
of ``without.'' The absence of an exclusive reservation means the 
Paiute Tribe is without a homeland. Without a homeland, the Paiute 
Tribe lacks economic growth and opportunity. Without economic growth 
and opportunity, the Paiute Tribe operates under deficient funds, far 
less than what is necessary to provide governmental services. Without 
the ability to provide governmental services, homelessness is rampant 
and most Paiute Tribal Members do not have running water and 
electricity. Without an exclusive reservation, our Tribe is deprived of 
the full benefit of healthcare assistance and services. We miss out on 
housing assistance that is only available to those with an exclusive 
reservation. Even our roads go without maintenance and are practically 
unusable. On and on, the pattern continues, and while the rest of the 
United States continues to progress, our people struggle daily without 
basic human needs that Americans and tribes have taken for granted for 
decades. This bill will be the first real step toward breaking that 
cycle.
    By passing H.R. 2461, Congress will have an immediate impact on the 
lives of hundreds of Paiute Tribal Members. Decades ago, the Paiute 
Tribe and the Navajo Nation made a promise, memorialized in a land 
treaty, that would finally give the Paiute Tribe an exclusive homeland. 
At long last, ratifying this Land Treaty between these two tribes will 
allow the Paiute Tribe to access critical resources, provide its Tribal 
Members with proper housing, utilize public utilities, and develop 
additional infrastructure.
    The effects of H.R. 2461 will be seen--in the water flowing and 
lights shining in Tribal Members' homes--and they will also be deeply 
felt. For generations, Tribal Members have been treated like unwanted 
visitors in their aboriginal territory. The mental and emotional toll 
that systemic disregard has on a group of people cannot be adequately 
articulated. H.R. 2461 will begin a healing process for all our Tribal 
Members, especially our elders, who have waited decades to see the 
Paiute Tribe receive its exclusive homeland and the basic assistance 
and services that are sure to flow from it.
    Not only will H.R. 2461 create a reservation for the last remaining 
landless tribe in Arizona, but the legislation will also be a 
significant show of support for tribal sovereignty. H.R. 2461 is the 
result of two tribal nations working in tandem to successfully 
negotiate a settlement via a historic land treaty for and located 
entirely in an existing Indian Reservation. This bill is an example of 
the United States actively honoring its promise to all tribal nations 
that tribal sovereignty is at the forefront of our government-to-
government relationship.
    Today, Congress can provide a path forward for those who were left 
behind. Ratifying the Land Treaty is unopposed, costs nothing, and 
harms no one. Yet, the tremendous impact that honoring this promise 
will have on the lives of so many is indescribable. To understand the 
historic impact that H.R. 2461 will have, we must understand how we got 
here.
A. History of the San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe

    The Paiute Tribe is a culturally and politically autonomous tribe 
of Native Americans who live in two distinct areas in northern Arizona 
and southern Utah. The Paiute Tribe's original territory was annexed 
into the Navajo Reservation pursuant to two Executive Orders in 1884 
and 1933. The annexations were driven by the steady and substantial 
increase of Navajo Tribal Members and the resulting territorial 
expansion into the southwest. These annexations had serious 
consequences for the Paiute Tribe. Not only did the Paiute Tribe slowly 
lose its aboriginal territory, but the legislation also legitimized the 
ever-increasing Navajo encroachment. Today, the Paiute Tribe is 
surrounded by the Navajo Nation, yet it is still considered to be part 
of the Southern Paiute Nation by the Navajo and the other Southern 
Paiute Tribes in Arizona, southern Utah, and southeastern Nevada.
    The two areas currently inhabited by Paiute Tribal Members are 
approximately 90 miles apart. Paiutes refer to the more southern of the 
two settlements as Atatsiv. Atatsiv, or ``Sands'' in English, refers to 
the sandy, spring-fed, farmland plateau northwest of Tuba City, along 
the Echo Cliffs at Willow Springs and Hidden Springs.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Pamela Bunte, Atatsivwu Umanakwat Kaivyaxaruruvatuxw, From the 
Sands to the Mountain: Ethnohistory and Ethnography of the San Juan 
Southern Paiute Tribe 284 (1987).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The northern settlement is known as Kaivyaxarur--``the Mountain 
Place'' in English--after the Paiute name for Navajo Mountain. The 
Paiute Tribe's homes and grazing areas are primarily north and 
northeast of Navajo Mountain, while farming predominantly occurs in 
Upper Paiute Canyon, southeast of Navajo Mountain.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Id. at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Paiute Tribe speaks a dialect of the Southern Paiute/Ute 
language derived from the Uto-Aztecan family of languages.\5\ The 
Paiute Tribe shares its language, traditional religion, kinship system, 
and many other cultural characteristics with the other Southern Paiute 
Nation tribes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Id. at 171.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Paiute Tribe's circumstances are nearly unrecognizable from 
when the first white settlers began farming at various Paiute springs 
in the latter part of the 19th century. Even with the continuous 
changes in their surroundings, the Paiute Tribe has endured, remaining 
cohesive and autonomous both in terms of kinship and political 
authority over its membership.
    The first Paiute Tribal villages were recorded near Navajo Mountain 
in 1776 by Spanish explorer Father Escalante and later by Mexican 
Officials in 1823 and 1829.\6\ Father Escalante was traveling with 
interpreters from the Ute Tribe when they met a group of Paiutes living 
on the eastern mesa rim of Navajo Canyon.\7\ This spot is not far from 
where the Paiute Tribal Members of Navajo Mountain and Upper Paiute 
Canyon live today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Herbert E. Bolton, Pageant in the Wilderness: The Story of the 
Escalante Expedition to the Interior Basin, 1776, 18 Utah Hist. Q., 
nos. 1, 2, 1950.
    \7\ Id. at 227-28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Paiute territory's extreme isolation and the small number of 
non-Indians passing through the area meant that encounters with the 
Paiute Tribe before the 1850s were few. However, as traffic in the area 
increased, so did written records of the Paiute Tribe's presence in the 
same general areas of northern Arizona and southern Utah.
    Due to the increase in traffic during the 1860s and 1870s, the 
Paiute Tribe began to feel the effects of encroachment on the Paiute 
territory by the Mormons from the west and the Navajo Nation from the 
east. For example, between 1859 and 1879, Mormon Missionary Jacob 
Hamblin made seven expeditions through the Paiute Territory to visit 
the Hopi Tribe. In the early 1870s, Mr. Hamblin and his fellow pioneers 
officially marked a trail through the Paiute Territory and founded 
Mormon colonies at Tuba City and Moenkopi.\8\ These settlements had a 
direct effect on both the Hopi and Paiute Tribes, who had lived in 
these areas for hundreds of years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Juanita Brooks, Journal of Thales H. Haskell, 12 Utah Hist. Q., 
nos. 1 & 2, 1944; see also James A. Little, Jacob Hamblin, A Narrative 
of his Personal Experience as a Frontiersman, Missionary to the Indians 
and Explorer 1 (reprt. 1971) (1909).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Navajo Wars in the 1860s caused members of the Navajo Nation to 
filter into the Paiute Tribe's traditional lands.\9\ The number of 
Navajo Nation Members entering the Paiute Tribe's territory steadily 
increased following the Navajo ``long walk'' and their release from 
Fort Sumner in 1868.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ See Proposed Findings for Federal Acknowledgment, supra note 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    During the 1870s and 1880s, the population of white settlers, Hopi 
Tribal Members, and Navajo Nation Members in the Tuba City/Moenkopi 
area grew rapidly. The settlers, the Paiute Tribal Members, and the 
Hopi Tribal Members farmed peacefully side-by-side in the Moenkopi 
area, while the Navajo Nation Members lived about 18 miles north of the 
Moenkopi Wash.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ A Mormon Chronicle: The Diaries of John D. Lee 1848-1876 314 
(Robert Glass Cleland & Juanita Brooks, eds., 1955, vols. 1 & 2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Trade between the Paiute Tribe and the Navajo Nation in the Tuba 
City/Moenkopi area built a vital economic foundation for the Paiute 
Tribe. While Paiute Tribal settlements were being raided by some Navajo 
Groups, the Paiutes were simultaneously making pitch water jugs woven 
from sumac to trade with friendlier Navajo groups.\11\ This sparked the 
basketry trade that would become an important source of income--often 
the sole source of income--for the Paiute Tribe in the proceeding 
decades.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ Id. at 229.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Despite the number of white settlers in the Moenkopi area, the 
Paiutes' relationship with the Mormons was generally peaceful. By the 
mid-1880s, however, the dramatically increasing number of white 
settlers pressured local Paiutes, Hopis, and Navajos into competing for 
natural resources, especially water, arable land, and minerals.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ See Proposed Findings for Federal Acknowledgment, supra note 
1, at 30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Once the conflicts over natural resources rose to a level that 
caught the attention of the federal government, agents were sent to the 
Moenkopi area to investigate the competition between the various 
tribes, the Mormons, and the Anglo miners. In 1888, Special Indian 
Agent H.S. Welton recommended that the Paiute Tribe be given title to 
the land they were cultivating around two springs. Unfortunately, these 
recommended allotments were never approved. As a result, the Paiute 
Tribe eventually lost one of the springs, likely to the white settlers.
    While many accounts of the Paiute Tribe describe them as sedentary 
farmers, by the end of the nineteenth century they had begun herding 
livestock.\13\ During the 1880s, Joe Lee, the grandson of Mormon 
Settlor John D. Lee, reported that a large group of Paiutes made a 
yearly move with their livestock from Tuba City to pasturage west of 
Navajo Mountain: ``each fall, Paiute families around Tuba City gathered 
up their horses, cattle and sheep moving north into Utah to Winter at 
Navajo Mountain. This meant a trip of more than 100 miles across the 
wildest canyon country imaginable . . . herds and flocks and family 
units strung out several miles.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Joe Lee, My Wonderful Life (Gladwell Richardson, ed.), 
Frontier Times, Feb.-Mar. 1974, at 6-64.
    \14\ Id. at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    By the mid-1890s, outsider encroachment and increased competition 
led several Paiute Tribal Members who had been farming in the Tuba 
City/Moenkopi area to give up and move permanently to the northern 
settlement. These Paiutes joined other Paiute Tribal Members who were 
already farming in Upper Paiute Canyon, leaving the Paiutes at Willow 
Springs to continue farming in the immediate Tuba City area.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ Id. at 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition to farming and herding, the southernmost settlement of 
Paiute Tribal Members derived some income from the continued basketry 
trade with the Navajo Nation. The baskets produced by the Paiute Tribe 
included the utilitarian jugs traded with the Navajo since the 1870s 
and the so-called ``Navajo wedding basket'' that served important 
religious functions in Navajo ceremonies.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ Franciscan Fathers St. Michaels, Arizona, An Ethnographic 
Dictionary of the Navajo Language 291-94 (1910).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Attempting to improve the situation for various Indian groups in 
the Tuba City area, the federal government removed the land near Tuba 
City and Moenkopi from the public domain in 1900. In 1903, Tuba City 
became the administrative center for the Western Navajo Agency. The 
lands in the nearby Moenkopi wash were parceled out among Hopis and 
Navajos. Meanwhile, the Paiute Tribe was forced to abandon its 
farmlands and would never again have access to their aboriginal farming 
sites nor farm south of Willow Springs.\17\ By 1904, the Mormons living 
near Tuba City were gone after receiving payment from the federal 
government for indemnification of their property.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ Bunte, supra note 3, at 35-36.
    \18\ Lee, supra note 10, at 55.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The United States Congress identified the Paiutes in 1906, 1907, 
and 1908 in three separate appropriations bills.\19\ In 1907, the 
Assistant Secretary of the Interior, Thomas Ryan, established an 
exclusive reservation for the Paiutes known as the ``Paiute Strip.'' 
\20\ The Paiute Strip stretched from the 110th parallel in the middle 
of Monument Valley west to the Colorado River.\21\ The northern border 
was the San Juan River, and the southern border was the Arizona/Utah 
state line.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ Proposed Findings of Fact for Federal Acknowledgment, supra 
note 1, at 2, 5.
    \20\ Id. at 8.
    \21\ Bunte, supra note 3, at 96.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At this time, the federal government knew very little about the 
Paiutes. For this reason, Superintendent Janus of the Western Navajo 
Agency traveled to the different local settlements in 1908 to determine 
their needs.\22\ At that time, the Paiutes were living and farming at 
Willow Springs, Cedar Ridge, Paiute Canyon, and Oljeto, near Monument 
Valley.\23\ They also grazed their sheep and goats in the area as well 
as on top of the plateau east of Gap Trading Post. According to 
Superintendent Janus, the ``accredited chief of all three divisions,'' 
``Pakai''--or David Lehi--lived at Cedar Ridge.\24\ Despite the Paiute 
Tribe's successful basket trading, farming, and herding, Superintendent 
Janus found the Paiutes to be quite poor--as poor as the ``poorer 
Navajos.'' \25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ Letter from S. Janus, Superintendent of the W. Navajo Agency, 
to Comm'r of Indian Affairs (Jan. 23, 1909) (on file with Los Angeles 
Federal Archives and Records Center).
    \23\ Id. at 1.
    \24\ Id.; see also Bunte, supra note 3, at 111, 112.
    \25\ Bunte, supra note 3, at 173.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Unfortunately, the flurry of federal attention was not long-lived. 
By 1920, the Paiutes in the Oljeto area had moved north of the San Juan 
River in response to continued encroachment on their lands by the 
Navajo Nation.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\ A.W. Leech, Report to Commissioner of Indian Affairs (May 18) 
(on file with the National Archives, Record Group 75, Central 
Classified Files, Western Navajo Agency, File 17605-1922); R. Van 
Valkenburgh & R. Dine Bikeyah, Window Rock, Arizona: Navajo Agency 
(1941).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 1922, the federal government returned the Paiute Strip to the 
public domain due to pressure from white lobbyists who were interested 
in mineral exploration of the land.\27\ In March 1933, after no oil or 
minerals were found, the land was annexed to the Navajo Nation, even 
though Paiute Tribal Members were still living in the western part of 
the former Paiute Strip around Navajo Mountain. Throughout these 
constant reversals, the Paiutes continued to live and farm at Willow 
Springs in the south and at Navajo Mountain and Paiute Canyon in the 
north.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\ See Albert Fall, The Secretary of Interior's Approval of the 
Return of the Paiute Reservation to Public Domain, 304 (July 17, 1922) 
(on file with the National Archives, Record Group 75, Central 
Classified Files, Western Navajo Agency, File 17605-1922); see also 
Letter to Paradise Oil (June 4) (on file with the National Archives, 
Record Group 75, Central Classified Files, Western Navajo Agency, File 
42622-192.1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The period from the 1930s to the 1960s is one of official federal 
government inattention. Since the southern and northern Paiute Tribal 
settlements were in relatively inaccessible places, it was easy for 
distant officials to forget about the Paiute Tribe's existence. 
Moreover, few, if any, Paiutes spoke English or knew the processes 
necessary to call attention to their plight.
    Although this inattention contributed demonstrably to the hardships 
and poverty experienced by our Tribe, it may have also inadvertently 
contributed to a significant retention of the Paiute language and 
cultural traditions than is found elsewhere among other southern Paiute 
groups.\28\ Today, the Paiute Tribe proudly retains the largest 
proportion of Paiute language speakers of any Paiute tribe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\ See Proposed Findings for Federal Acknowledgment, supra note 
1, at 32-33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    During this period, the Paiute Tribal Members continued to support 
themselves primarily through subsistence farming and herding. Although 
herding replaced hunting to a large extent, some members of the Paiute 
Tribe still hunt annually north of the San Juan River and south of the 
Grand Canyon. For hundreds of years, summer farming provided occasions 
for Paiutes to gather together. Tribal Members also came together to 
collect pine nuts in the fall of each year, while in the winter months, 
life consisted of visiting, storytelling, dancing, and playing 
games.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\ Bunte, supra note 3, at 118.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As for the basket trade with the Navajos, it appears that in the 
1930s, the Paiutes were the major--or potentially only--suppliers of 
the Navajo wedding basket in the Tuba City area.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\ Omer C. Stewart, The Navajo Wedding Basket, 10 Plateau 25 
(1938); see also Bunte, supra note 3, at 316.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s were economically difficult for the 
Tribe. The land we traditionally occupied was now insufficient to 
support all of our Paiute Tribal Members. Some were forced to leave the 
reservation to look for work. Others were sent away to boarding 
schools, electing not to return after graduation because of the lack of 
economic opportunity. By the 1950s, many Paiute Tribal Members were 
employed seasonally as farm laborers in central Utah. Our neighbors, 
the Kaibab-Paiutes, were particularly generous in providing these jobs, 
acting as a go-between for the Paiute Tribe and the white farmers, and 
making all the arrangements, including transportation.\31\ 
Occasionally, entire families would move up to Utah for a few months, 
but most often the men would go alone and return to Willow Springs at 
the end of the harvest season.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\ Bunte, supra note 3, at 118.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the 1970s and 1980s, the Paiute Tribe dealt with serious policy 
concerns, including a lack of attention from the federal government, 
and the resultant lack of services.\32\ Additionally, the Paiute Tribe 
learned that much of their remaining land, unbeknownst to them, was 
being fought over and slowly annexed to the Navajo Nation and the Hopi 
Tribe. To remedy this unacceptable situation, the Paiute Tribe had to 
become a federally recognized tribe. As a result, the Paiute Tribe 
petitioned the federal government for official recognition as an Indian 
Tribe in 1986. Three years later, in December 1989, the Paiute Tribe 
received federal recognition and intervened in the land claims 
litigation. The Paiute Tribe has been fighting for their exclusive land 
base ever since.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\ Id. at 228.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Background of the Treaty Legislation, H.R. 2461

    H.R. 2461 is the result of decades of uncertainty, litigation, and 
negotiations over the rights and interests in lands reserved by 
Congress pursuant to the Act of June 14, 1934 (the ``1934 Act'').\33\ 
The 1934 Act set aside certain lands in Arizona as a reservation ``for 
the Navajo and such other Indians as may already be located thereon'' 
(the ``1934 Act Lands'').\34\ This statute gave an equitable interest 
in portions of the 1934 Act Lands to the Navajo Nation, the Paiute 
Tribe, and the Hopi Tribe.\35\ ``The 1934 Act was not intended to 
disturb then-existing land tenure patterns.'' \36\ It was intended to 
``preserve a status quo and not to disturb existing arrangements.'' 
\37\ Congress necessarily intended the 1934 Act to protect the Paiute 
Tribe and our traditional ways of life.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\ See Act of June 14, 1934, 48 Stat. 960 [hereinafter 1934 Act].
    \34\ Id. at 961.
    \35\ Masayesva v. Zah, 794 F. Supp. 899, 928 (D. Ariz. 1992) (The 
1934 Act ``established the external boundaries of the Navajo 
Reservation and conveyed an equitable interest in certain of these 
lands to the Navajo Nation and `such other Indians as may already be 
located thereon', including the Paiute Indians.'' (emphasis added)).
    \36\ Sekaquaptewa v. Macdonald, 619 F.2d 801, 808 (9th Cir. 1980), 
cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1010 (1980).
    \37\ Id.
    \38\ See 1934 Act, 48 Stat. 960, 961; See also Act of March 1, 
1933, Pub. L. No. 72-403, 47 Stat. 1418 (setting aside the Reservation 
lands in Utah near Navajo Mountain ``for the benefit of the Navajo and 
such other Indians as the Secretary of the Interior may see fit to 
settle thereon . . .'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 1974, Congress passed the Navajo-Hopi Settlement Act (the ``1974 
Act'') \39\ to settle a long-standing dispute between the Hopi and the 
Navajo over lands within northern Arizona. Upon passage of the 1974 
Act, the Hopi Tribe sued the Navajo Nation seeking a declaration of 
title and a partition of the jointly held 1934 Act Lands, in what is 
known as the Masayesva v. Zah litigation. The Paiute Tribe, which was 
nearly extinguished by foreign illnesses and encroachment by outsiders, 
moved to intervene in the case in August 1982. At the time we moved to 
intervene, the Paiute Tribe was not yet federally recognized. However, 
federal recognition was crucial to the Paiute Tribe's claims in the 
1934 Act Lands. On December 15, 1989, the Assistant Secretary of Indian 
Affairs published a ``Notice of Final Determination that the San Juan 
Southern Paiute Tribe Exists as an Indian Tribe,'' \40\ officially 
recognizing the Paiute Tribe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \39\ See Act of December 22, 1974, P.L. 93-531, 88 Stat. 1712.
    \40\ See sources cited supra note 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Navajo Nation filed a complaint under the Administrative 
Procedures Act challenging the determination of our Tribe's existence. 
The Navajo Nation's challenge was dismissed by the federal court, and 
the dismissal was not appealed. As a result of the Paiute Tribe's 
federal recognition, the district court in the Masayesva v. Zah 
litigation held that it had jurisdiction pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 
Sec. 640D-7(a) to ``determine the rights of the Paiute Tribe in the 
1934 Reservation and quiet title thereto.'' \41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \41\ See Masayesva v. Zah 792 F.Supp. 1165, 1168-1169 (D. Ariz. 
1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    From October 1989 to February 1990, the Paiute Tribe participated 
in a trial on the merits of the Masayesva v. Zah litigation involving 
the Hopi and Paiute Tribe's land claims. In 1992, Findings of Fact and 
Conclusions of Law were issued regarding the Paiute Tribe's claims 
under the 1934 Act.\42\ The court found that approximately 26,000 acres 
of land were held jointly by the Paiute Tribe and the Navajo Nation. 
Critically, the court retreated from its prior ruling that it would 
quiet title interests in land to the Paiute Tribe and instead simply 
declared where the Paiutes and Navajo share a joint and undivided 
interest in certain portions of the 1934 Act Lands.\43\ The Paiute 
Tribe appealed the district court's decision.\44\ Litigation of the 
appeal has been postponed since that time while the Paiute Tribe and 
the Navajo Nation pursued a settlement of their dispute via a land 
treaty.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \42\ See Masayesva v. Zah 794 F.Supp. 899, 929 (D. Ariz. 1992).
    \43\ Id. at 928-929.
    \44\ The Hopi Tribe's Land Claims in the 1934 Act Reservation have 
since been resolved. See, e.g., Masayesva ex rel. Hopi Indian Tribe v. 
Hale, 118 F.3d 1371, 1376-77 (9th Cir. 1997).
    \45\ Masayesva v. Zah, No. 93-15216 (9th Cir. Feb. 10, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. The San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe and Navajo Nation Land Treaty of 
        2000

    To resolve the land dispute and dismiss the appeal, the Paiute 
Tribe and the Navajo Nation negotiated a land treaty, finalized and 
executed in 2000. The Treaty set aside two parcels of land within the 
Navajo Reservation to be held by the United States in trust exclusively 
for the Paiute Tribe (the ``Treaty Lands'').\46\ The Treaty provides 
for a homeland for the Paiute Tribe and resolves the long-standing 
Masayesva v. Zah litigation between the Paiute Tribe and the Navajo 
Nation, regarding the extent of the Paiute Tribe's interest in the 1934 
Act Lands. Through the Treaty, the Paiute Tribe and the Navajo Nation 
``desire to establish harmony between the two nations for all future 
generations.'' \47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \46\ See Treaty, Navajo Nation-San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe, Mar. 
18, 2000; Addendum to Treaty, Navajo Nation-San Juan Southern Paiute 
Tribe, May 7, 2004.
    \47\ Treaty, supra note 46, at Article I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Although signed in 2000, and affirmed in 2004, the Treaty will not 
take effect until it is signed by the Secretary of the Interior and 
ratified by Congress. Neither of those requirements has been met in the 
last 23 years. As a result, the Paiute Tribe remains without an 
exclusive homeland and the Masayesva v. Zah litigation remains pending 
in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. But the passage of H.R. 2461 
will change that.
2. H.R. 2461 positive effect on the health and safety of Paiute Tribal 
        Members

    H.R. 2461 sets aside two parcels of land for the new San Juan 
Southern Paiute Tribe Reservation, which reflects the Paiute Tribe and 
Navajo Nation's agreement under the Treaty. These areas are referred to 
as the Southern Area, approximately 5,100 acres around Willow Springs 
(west of Tuba City), and the Northern Area, approximately 300 acres in 
Utah (near Navajo Mountain).\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \48\ Treaty, supra note 46, at attached maps A-F (available upon 
request).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    An exclusive reservation is critical for the health, safety, and 
livelihood of the Paiute Tribe. We currently have no control over 
whether Paiute Tribal Members have access to basic utilities like water 
and electricity. The Paiute Tribe's inability to guarantee the most 
fundamental services exacerbates homelessness and public health issues 
and contributes to the absence of economic development. A reservation 
will give the Paiute Tribe jurisdiction over its land and enable the 
Paiute Tribe to provide services related to public health, safety, and 
infrastructure development.
    Presently, the Paiute Tribe is the only landless tribe in Arizona. 
Paiute Tribal Members continue to live alongside their Navajo neighbors 
and families within the Navajo Reservation pursuant to the 1934 Act and 
the 1974 Act. These federal laws confirmed that Congress reserved the 
1934 Act Lands to benefit the Paiute Tribe as well as the Navajo 
Nation, jointly.
    Despite the existence of these critical laws, however, when Paiute 
Tribal Members seek to obtain basic human needs like water and 
electricity, they are met with systemic roadblocks like laws requiring 
Navajo tribal membership as a prerequisite to obtaining utilities on 
their jointly held lands.
    These jurisdictional issues prevent the Paiute Tribe from accessing 
or applying for funding opportunities only available to tribes with an 
exclusive designated land base. As a result of the absence of 
Congressional ratification of the Treaty, it has been nearly impossible 
to generate the funds necessary to provide for the most basic needs of 
Tribal Members. The practical reality is that Paiute Tribal Members 
have faced pervasive homelessness due largely to the lack of an 
established homeland that stems from the Treaty not yet being ratified.
    H.R. 2461 will resolve the most substantial jurisdictional issues 
between the Paiute Tribe and the Navajo Nation, while honoring the 
intent of the 1934 and 1974 Acts. The Paiute Tribe will be able to work 
with the United States and the Navajo Nation to provide electricity and 
water to Tribal Members where the status of the land is currently a 
hindrance. Basic human rights will be fulfilled simply by resolving 
these property interests, and honoring the agreement negotiated between 
the Navajo Nation and the Paiute Tribe over 23 years ago.
3. H.R. 2461 and the Little Colorado River Adjudication

    The Paiute Tribe and the Navajo Nation are currently involved in 
the adjudication of the Navajo Nation's water rights claims within the 
Arizona portion of the Little Colorado River Basin (the 
``Adjudication''). The Navajo Nation is claiming rights to the water 
located beneath the Treaty Lands it agreed to partition to the Paiute 
Tribe, as well as water in areas in which the Paiute Tribe shares a 
joint interest with the Navajo Nation. In other words, the Navajo 
Nation is claiming water rights for water in which it does not have an 
exclusive property interest. Therefore, the Paiute Tribe is forced to 
object to the Navajo Nation's water claims and litigate water rights 
for the 26,000 acres of 1934 Act Lands where the district court found 
the Paiute Tribe has a shared equitable interest with the Navajo 
Nation. H.R. 2461 will eliminate the majority, if not all, of the 
current Adjudication litigation between the Navajo Nation and the 
Paiute Tribe.
    H.R. 2461 will establish distinct property interests for each tribe 
and help resolve the Paiute Tribe's underlying objection to the Navajo 
Nation's water claims. Without Congressional ratification of the 
Treaty, the Paiute Tribe and the Navajo Nation's Adjudication 
litigation will continue unnecessarily (potentially for many years) 
over issues that would be resolved if the Treaty were ratified. The 
lasting harmony that the Paiute Tribe and the Navajo Nation wish to 
achieve requires Congressional ratification.
    The Paiute Tribe's status as an active objector in the Adjudication 
is also causing delays in the proceedings, which inevitably complicates 
the ability of other stakeholders to adjudicate their water rights 
claims. Ratification of the Treaty will allow the cities, irrigators, 
farmers, businesses, and companies within the Little Colorado River 
Basin to make progress toward obtaining their own water rights decrees.
III. Conclusion

    The Paiute Tribe is a federally recognized Indian Tribe that has 
occupied its ancestral homeland since before colonization. Today the 
Tribe continues to live in northern Arizona and southern Utah, on lands 
entirely encompassed within the external boundaries of the Navajo 
Reservation. Due to the Paiute Tribe's relatively small size and the 
remoteness of its homelands, the Tribe has often been forgotten or 
pushed aside. The Paiute Tribe has been fighting to keep a small part 
of its aboriginal territory since its traditional lands were encroached 
upon by settlers and the Navajo Nation. This effort to reclaim a part 
of their homeland through an exclusive reservation has only intensified 
since the Tribe's federal recognition in 1989.
    In 1934, Congress established the Navajo Reservation for the Navajo 
Nation and the other Indians located thereon, principally the Hopi 
Tribe and the Paiute Tribe. In 1974 following years of unsuccessful 
negotiations, Congress allowed the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe to 
sue each other and any other tribe claiming rights to the 1934 Act 
Reservation (the Masayesva v. Zah litigation). After gaining federal 
recognition in 1989 the Paiute Tribe intervened in Masayesva v. Zah as 
one of the other tribes claiming an interest in the 1934 Act Lands.
    The Masayesva v. Zah litigation resulted in a determination that 
the Navajo Nation and the Paiute Tribe held a joint and equitable 
interest in approximately 26,000 acres of the 1934 Act Lands. The 
Paiute Tribe alone appealed. To settle the appeal in 2000 the Navajo 
Nation and the Paiute Tribe drafted and signed the Treaty that gave the 
Paiute Tribe an exclusive reservation of 5,400 acres of the 1934 Act 
Lands. Unfortunately, the Treaty has not taken effect because it 
requires Congress's ratification and a signature from the Secretary of 
the Interior. This has left the Paiute Tribe in limbo for 23 years, 
without a designated homeland.
    The lack of an exclusive reservation has had detrimental effects on 
the Paiute Tribal Members. Without land, the Paiute Tribe cannot access 
critical funding resources, provide its Tribal Members with proper 
housing, utilize public utility networks, or develop additional 
infrastructure. This has resulted in increased homelessness, and the 
homes that do exist are without fundamental necessities like running 
water and electricity.
    H.R. 2461 empowers Congress to change the lives of hundreds of 
Tribal Members for the better. Ratification of the Treaty will resolve 
jurisdictional issues between the Paiute Tribe and the Navajo Nation, 
allowing them to progress on issues concerning public health and safety 
and economic growth. The Paiute Tribe would finally be able to provide 
its Tribal Members with clean and safe water, electricity, and 
essential infrastructure repairs, instead of being entangled in 
unnecessary litigation for the foreseeable future.
    Ratification of the Treaty would also relieve an unwavering 
emotional burden on the Tribal Members, most significantly the elders, 
most of whom have moved on to the next world without ever seeing the 
Treaty come to fruition.
    We are asking Congress to approve what we consider to be a valid 
treaty negotiated and entered into by two sovereign tribes. H.R. 2461 
will be the final step in settling a decades long land dispute and will 
allow for the creation of the San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe 
Reservation. I respectfully request your support and passage of H.R. 
2461.

                                 ______
                                 

   Questions Submitted for the Record to the Hon. Johnny Lehi, Jr., 
               President, San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe

            Questions Submitted by Representative Westerman

    Question 1. Following up on your written and oral testimony, can 
you further expand on if the San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe is aware of 
any concerns from Navajo or Hopi tribal members about access to sacred 
sites or shared lands that may be affected by creating a reservation 
for the San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe?

    Answer. The Paiute Tribe is unaware of any concerns related to 
accessing sacred sites or shared lands that would result from creation 
of a reservation for the Paiute Tribe. Land access is covered in the 
language of the Treaty which is incorporated in Section 7 of H.R. 2461, 
Rights of Access Easements. Neither the Hopi Tribe nor the Navajo 
Nation have indicated that the access language in the Treaty is 
inadequate to protect access to shared lands or sacred sites.
    The Paiute Tribe remains in close contact with both the Navajo 
Nation and the Hopi Tribe. There have been ample opportunities over the 
last 23 years for the tribes to address any access concerns. Today, for 
example, the Paiute Tribe, the Navajo Nation, and the Hopi Tribe are in 
the middle of the Little Colorado River Adjudication. The three tribes 
are together 4 days a week and have had the opportunity to discuss the 
legislation frequently. During several status hearings in the water 
adjudication, where the court has asked for an update on the status of 
the Treaty, the Navajo Nation has openly and plainly stated on the 
record that the Navajo Nation continues to support of the legislation, 
which the Navajo Nation refers to as ``the law of the land.''
    In 2022, to ensure there were no issues regarding access or 
otherwise, the Navajo Nation conducted public community meetings 
throughout the Navajo Reservation, including the areas most likely to 
be impacted by H.R. 2461. During those community meetings the Navajo 
Department of Justice discussed the history of the Treaty, identified 
the lands included in the legislation and requested public comment and 
discussion. The purpose of these community meetings was to ensure all 
community members, regardless of tribal affiliation, were afforded the 
opportunity to identify concerns and issues with the legislation. No 
objections were reported to the Paiute Tribe and the Navajo Nation 
continues to fully support the legislation.
    The lands included in H.R. 2461 are not shared lands amongst the 
Hopi Tribe and the Navajo Nation or the Hopi Tribe and the Paiute 
Tribe. The Hopi Tribe has no interest in the lands included in the 
legislation, which are located entirely on the Navajo Reservation. 
Paiute leadership and Hopi leadership have met multiple times in the 
last year and have had opportunities to discuss the Treaty and H.R. 
2461. The Hopi Tribe supports the legislation and have offered whatever 
support they can to ensure H.R. 2461 is ratified.
    As referenced above, Section 7 of H.R. 2461 provides that Navajo 
and Paiute access and easement rights shall be subject to the rights of 
access and easement as identified in the Treaty, dated March 18, 2000. 
Article XI of the Treaty provides for ingress and egress rights for 
both tribes. Article XII preserves access for traditional gathering of 
basketmaking materials, medicinal plants, and other plant materials. 
Article XIII preserves the access and use rights of the tribal members 
to burial and sacred sites. Article XIV preserves the tribe's existing 
rights to use certain water sources located in and around the lands 
included in H.R. 2461. Article XVI provides for utility easements to 
the Paiute Tribe for the extension of utilities across proposed land.
    The Hopi Tribe's existing access rights, if any, are not affected 
by the creation of the Paiute Tribe's reservation. No known agreements 
between the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe are affected by creation 
of a reservation on the lands identified in the legislation. Neither 
the Hopi nor the Navajo have indicated that any previous agreement or 
settlement between them will be affected when H.R. 2461 is ratified.
    The Treaty was drafted to preserve the tribes' existing access and 
use rights, while conferring jurisdiction to the Paiute Tribe so it can 
exercise self-determination over its own land and provide 
infrastructure to its people. The Treaty Lands were identified to have 
little to no impact on the Paiute Tribe's neighboring tribes. For these 
reasons, there have been no concerns about access rights at any time in 
the last 23 years, and all three tribes continue to wholly support H.R. 
2461.

    1a) Can you also provide the committee with information on how 
those concerns would be raised and resolved under this bill and the 
2000 treaty?

    Answer. Although the Paiute Tribe is unaware of any existing 
concerns regarding access, those that may arise in the future would be 
addressed pursuant to Article XIX of the Treaty. As detailed above, the 
Treaty provides for access and easements to burial and sacred sites, 
traditional gathering areas, access roads and water sources for 
farming. Pursuant to Article XIX of the Treaty, the Navajo Nation or 
any of its members or the Paiute Tribe or any of its members may 
commence an action for declaratory or injunctive relief only, provided 
that the action is not barred by sovereign immunity.
    Prior to taking legal action, the tribes would address any concerns 
regarding access amongst their respective governing bodies and work to 
alleviate any issues and are likely to grant reasonable access. These 
three tribes have lived together for hundreds of years. The Paiute 
Tribe is extremely close with both the Hopi Tribe and the Navajo 
Nation. Any concerns resulting from the passage of H.R. 2461 would be 
addressed both traditionally and if necessary, there is a legal remedy 
built into the language of the Treaty and incorporated into H.R. 2461.

    Question 2. Could you further expand on your tribe's relationship 
with the Navajo Nation, the Hopi tribe, and any other neighboring 
tribes historically in the context of this legislation?

    Answer. The Paiute Tribe has lived in the northern Arizona and 
southern Utah area since time immemorial. Prior to the Navajo being 
relocated to the area the Paiute Tribe and the Hopi Tribe were 
neighbors and allies for hundreds of years. During the period of the 
Navajo Long Walk, Paiutes in the area hid Navajo Tribal Members from 
the United States Army, saving their lives and helping to ensure the 
survival of the Navajo people. Since then, the Navajo Nation has 
expanded time and time again, eventually encompassing the aboriginal 
territory of the Paiute Tribe. Within a few decades the Paiute Tribe 
found itself surrounded by the Navajo Nation on all sides. Still, the 
Paiute Tribe remained friendly and supportive of its neighboring 
tribes, even when that support inevitably worked against the Paiute 
Tribe's interest.
    For instance, the Paiute Tribe has been largely uninvolved in the 
majority of historical land disputes amongst the Hopi Tribe and the 
Navajo Nation. Even with its historical presence, use and occupation of 
the same lands, the Paiute Tribe remained objective and preferred not 
to involve itself in the conflicts of its sister tribes. In the mid-
1970s however, it became clear that the Navajo Nation and the Hopi 
Tribe were litigating between themselves claims to all reservation 
lands in northeastern Arizona, including the lands on which the Paiute 
Tribe had lived for generations.
    Congress passed the Act of June 14, 1934, which defined the 
boundaries of the Navajo Reservation and permanently withdrew such 
lands from all forms of entry or disposal ``for the Navajo and such 
other Indians as may already located thereon'' (the ``1934 Act 
Lands''). Pursuant to this Act, Congress confirmed and thereby 
protected the Paiute Tribe's rights to lands within the Navajo 
Reservation. In 1974. Congress enacted 25 U.S.C. Sec. 640d-7. Section 
640d-7 authorizes the Hopi and Navajo Tribes ``to commence or defend in 
the District Court an action against the other tribe and any other 
tribe of Indians claiming any interest in or to the area described in 
the Act of June 14, 1934 . . .'' In 1974 the Hopi sued the Navajo 
Nation for quiet title to the areas the Hopi Tribe claimed in the 1934 
Act Lands. Neither tribe joined the Paiute Tribe, so the Paiute 
intervened in 1988 only after learning about the lawsuit several years 
after it commenced. This litigation is known as the Masayesva v. Zah 
litigation.
    The three tribes spent the next several years litigating where each 
had a property interest in the 1934 Act Lands. The Paiute Tribe and the 
Hopi Tribe did not have competing claims for land, each therefore 
litigated their separate claims against the Navajo Nation which was 
claiming all of the land as belonging to the Navajo Nation. After 
several years of trial, the District Court determined that the Paiute 
Tribe had joint and exclusive interests in approximately 26,000 acres 
of land created under the Act of 1934. The Paiute Tribe appealed the 
ruling arguing, in part, the joint and exclusive use area should be 
larger. The Navajo Nation did not appeal.
    To avoid further litigation the Paiute Tribe and the Navajo Nation 
entered settlement negotiations. As a result of these discussions, the 
Navajo Nation and the Paiute Tribe negotiated the current Treaty which 
was executed in 2000. Pursuant to the Treaty, in exchange for 5,400 
acres of land to be an exclusive Paiute Reservation, the Paiute Tribe's 
appeal would be dismissed with prejudice, as of the date the Treaty is 
effective, i.e., when the Treaty is signed by the Secretary of Interior 
and ratified by Congress.
    The only remaining shared lands reserved pursuant to the 1934 Act 
are those jointly held for the equal benefit of the Paiute Tribe and 
the Navajo Nation. At one point the Navajo and Hopi had shared areas of 
the 1934 Act Lands, but those joint use areas were partitioned by the 
District Court over 20 years ago. The Hopi Tribe is not directly 
affected by the Treaty or the resulting legislation. The lands included 
in H.R. 2461 do not include any shared lands or sacred sites with the 
Hopi Tribe. Although H.R. 2461 will have nominal effect on the Hopi, 
the Hopi Tribe has long supported the Treaty between the Paiute Tribe 
and the Navajo Nation. There are not now, nor have there ever been, any 
land disputes between the Paiute Tribe and the Hopi Tribe.
    Decades after the Treaty was signed, the Navajo Nation and the 
Paiute Tribe drafted the current legislation together and both continue 
to stand by the language of H.R. 2461. Although the tribes are 
independent sovereign nations, the three tribes recognize the 
importance of cooperation in the context of this legislation and on 
related issues. We see the Treaty and its legislation as a meaningful 
example of the intertribal cooperation between the Hopi, Paiute and 
Navajo tribes. The Paiute Tribe hopes to continue its friendly 
relationship with its sister tribes and support their future efforts 
and rights to assert their sovereignty and strengthen their tribal 
nations.
    On behalf of the Paiute Tribe, we once again thank the Subcommittee 
for its attention and interest in this legislation. We remain available 
to answer any questions or concerns that may arise.

                                 ______
                                 

    Ms. Hageman. Thank you, President Lehi. The Chair now 
recognizes Tribal Council Secretary Michael Langley for 5 
minutes.

     STATEMENT OF THE HON. MICHAEL LANGLEY, TRIBAL COUNSEL 
SECRETARY, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE GRAND RONDE, GRAND RONDE, 
                             OREGON

    Mr. Langley. Good morning and thank you, Madam Chair, 
Ranking Member Leger Fernandez, and the members of the 
Subcommittee. My name is Michael Langley, and I am the Tribal 
Council Secretary of the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde 
Community of Oregon.
    The tribes and bands confederated on our reservation signed 
seven treaties with the United States between 1853 and 1855. 
These treaties were ratified by the U.S. Senate and the Grand 
Ronde Reservation was established by these treaty arrangements 
and by an 1857 executive order. In less than 100 years, 1954, 
the Tribe was terminated by Congress. However, in 1983, 
Congress reversed itself and passed the Grand Ronde Restoration 
Act. We needed a new reservation plan, one was developed, and 
Congress passed the Grand Ronde Reservation Act in 1988.
    After our Reservation Act was enacted, the U.S. Bureau of 
Land Management detected a survey error on the Grand Ronde 
Reservation dating back to 1871. The U.S. Deputy Surveyor named 
David Thompson had incorrectly surveyed the east boundary of 
the reservation, leaving an 84-acre area as unsurveyed. After 
being informed of this survey error, the Tribe and the BLM 
settled this matter by agreeing to the transfer of 240 acres of 
Oregon and California grant lands as compensation for the 
Thompson Strip. The Tribe also agreed to relinquish its claims 
to the Thompson Strip.
    This BLM land transfer and our extinguishment of its land 
claims were memorialized in an amendment to the Grand Ronde 
Reservation Act in 1994. In drafting a language to authorize 
this land exchange, the Interior Department developed broad 
language that relinquished any future claims of this type 
within the state of Oregon. BLM officials at the time expressed 
concern about the sweeping nature of this language, as it would 
preclude us from receiving any compensation if the BLM were to 
discover any other survey areas within the Grand Ronde 
Reservation.
    In agreeing to this land exchange in 1994, the intent of 
the parties was for Grand Ronde to relinquish its rights only 
to the Thompson Strip and to any claims for lost timber income. 
Our Tribe discovered this Thompson Strip issue only recently, 
when working on another amendment to the Grand Ronde 
Reservation Act. While we are not aware of any specific new 
survey errors, we do want to be proactive about ensuring that 
the Tribe has the right to be compensated should another survey 
error be found.
    The language in H.R. 1722 is quite simple. It replaces the 
phrase ``State of Oregon'' with the phrase ``the 84 acres known 
as the Thompson Strip.'' By this language, the Tribe would only 
relinquish its claims to the Thompson Strip, which was the 
intent of the parties in our 1994 land exchange.
    It is not Grand Ronde's intention that this technical 
corrections amendment would be used to facilitate Indian gaming 
or impact the treaty rights of any other Indian tribe. For this 
reason, the proposed legislation would prohibit class II or 
class III gaming on any lands obtained by the Tribe as part of 
a land claim settlement.
    Additionally, this technical corrections amendment would 
not impact any treaty right of a federally recognized Indian 
tribe.
    H.R. 1722 was introduced by Congresswoman Andrea Salinas on 
March 22 of this year, and is co-sponsored by all of the other 
members of the Oregon Congressional Delegation.
    During this hearing, the Subcommittee is also considering 
H.R. 2839, a bill to permit the Confederated Tribes of Siletz 
Indians of Oregon to negotiate new hunting and fishing 
agreements with the state of Oregon. This Siletz bill is 
similar to H.R. 2850, a bill to permit Grand Ronde to do the 
same. Both bills seek to address the exact same inequity that 
occurred more than 35 years ago.
    When both Siletz and Grand Ronde were negotiating the terms 
of their respective reservation act in the 1980s, the state of 
Oregon sought to limit the hunting and fishing rights of both 
Tribes and their members. These hunting and fishing agreements 
with the state of Oregon were executed with both Tribes as a 
condition of state support for their respective reservation 
acts. The agreements have identical language, and both contain 
multiple provisions stating that these agreements are permanent 
and cannot be amended.
    The Siletz and Grand Ronde bills have been paired together, 
and should remain that way because they involve the same 
hunting and fishing agreements and authorize the same process 
of negotiation on these issues with the state of Oregon. Grand 
Ronde is disappointed that our bill has not been allowed to 
move forward with a Subcommittee hearing alongside the Siletz 
bill, as the issues are the same. However, I would like to say 
we are in support of the Siletz.
    Thank you for the opportunity to present Grand Ronde's 
views. We hope the members of the Committee on Natural 
Resources will support H.R. 1722, the Tribe's Thompson Strip 
legislation, and vote it favorably out of Committee.
    At the appropriate time, I am happy to answer any questions 
that the members of the Subcommittee may have. Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Langley follows:]
    Prepared Statement of the Hon. Michael Langley, Tribal Council 
 Secretary, Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon
    on H.R. 1722, the Grand Ronde Reservation Act Amendment of 2023

    Chair Hageman, Ranking Member Leger Fernandez, and Members of the 
Subcommittee, my name is Michael Langley, and I am the Tribal Council 
Secretary of the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of 
Oregon (``Grand Ronde'' or ``Tribe'').
    The tribes and bands confederated on the Grand Ronde Reservation 
signed seven (7) treaties with the United States between 1853 and 1855. 
These treaties were ratified by the U.S. Senate and today are binding 
on the Tribe and the United States. The Grand Ronde Reservation was 
established by these treaty arrangements and by the Executive Order of 
June 30, 1857.\1\ The Reservation is located in Polk and Yamhill 
Counties in Oregon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ This Executive Order was signed by President James Buchanan and 
the Grand Ronde Reservation established by the Executive Order 
comprised 69,120 acres.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 1954, the Tribe was terminated by Congress, along with other 
tribes in western Oregon.\2\ In 1983, Congress reversed itself and 
passed the Grand Ronde Restoration Act.\3\ This Act restored the 
Tribe's Federal recognition by reinstating its rights and privileges 
under any Federal treaty, statute, or other Federal authority.\4\ The 
Act also re-applied the Indian Reorganization Act to the Tribe, along 
with other Federal laws and regulations of general applicability to 
Indian tribes and their members.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Public Law 83-588 (Aug. 13, 1954), codified at 25 U.S.C. 
Sec. Sec. 691, et seq.
    \3\ Public Law 98-165 (Nov. 22, 1983), codified at 25 U.S.C. 
Sec. Sec. 713, et seq.
    \4\ 25 U.S.C. Sec. 713b.
    \5\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Restoration Act required that the reservation for Grand Ronde 
would be re-established by subsequent Congressional legislation. After 
a reservation plan was developed, Congress passed the Grand Ronde 
Reservation Act in 1988.\6\ The Reservation Act was only approved after 
the State forced the Tribe into a hunting and fishing agreement that 
was ratified both in the legislation and in a judicial consent decree.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Public Law 100-425 (Sept. 9, 1988), 25 U.S.C. Sec. 713f note.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    The Thompson Strip Survey Error

    After this legislation was enacted, the U.S. Bureau of Land 
Management (``BLM'') detected a survey error on the Grand Ronde 
Reservation, dating back to 1871. A U.S. Deputy Surveyor, David 
Thompson, had incorrectly surveyed the east boundary of the 
Reservation, leaving an 84-acre area as unsurveyed.\7\ Until the survey 
error was discovered in 1988, the BLM treated this land as Oregon and 
California Railroad Grant Lands (``O&C Grant Lands'') and the agency 
permitted timber to be harvested by private timber companies. The land, 
however, was still held in trust for the Tribe by the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ This unsurveyed land was referred to as a ``hiatus'' by BLM 
surveyors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    After being informed of this survey error, the Tribe determined 
that this parcel--called the Thompson Strip--was unmanageable by Grand 
Ronde because of its narrow boundaries and the fact that it divided the 
ownership interests of several parties. The Tribe then sought a land 
exchange with the BLM as compensation for the loss of this land.
    At the time, the Tribe valued the Thompson Strip as worth 
approximately $2.3 million and initially requested the transfer of a 
360-acre parcel of O&C Grant Lands adjacent to the Grand Ronde 
Reservation. The BLM and the Tribe eventually settled this matter by 
agreeing to the transfer of 240 acres of O&C Grant Lands as 
compensation for the Thompson Strip. The Tribe also agreed to 
relinquish its claims to the Thompson Strip.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ See infra footnote 13, Statement of Mark Mercier, Chairman, 
Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde, at 98.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This BLM land transfer and the Tribe's extinguishment of its land 
claims were memorialized in an amendment to the Grand Ronde Reservation 
Act in 1994. This amendment was added to a broader Indian technical 
corrections bill and signed into law by the President on November 2, 
1994.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ Section 2 of Public Law 103-435 (Nov. 2, 1994), codified at 25 
U.S.C. Sec. 713f note, subsection (d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     The Land Claims Drafting Error

    In drafting the language to authorize this land exchange, the 
Interior Department developed broad language that relinquished any 
future claims of this type within the State of Oregon. BLM officials at 
the time expressed concern about the sweeping nature of this language, 
as it would preclude the Tribe from receiving any compensation (or 
participating in a future land transfer) should the BLM discover any 
additional survey errors within the exterior boundaries of the Grand 
Ronde Reservation.

    Examples from BLM internal memoranda in 1994--obtained by the Tribe 
through a Freedom of Information Act request--include the following 
comments:

     ``The Bill extinguishes all claims established by the 
            Executive Order of June 30, 1857. This does not protect the 
            Indian's rights. This Bill should only apply to the 
            Thompson strip because there may be other similar problems 
            that we are not aware of at this time.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Memorandum from Ron Scherler, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 
June 17, 1994.

     ``[S]ince there may be similar hiatus areas along this 
            boundary further to the north, does the Tribe's 
            extinguishment of all claims pertain to any future 
            situations, or only to the Thompson Strip?'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ Memorandum from Mike Gardner, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 
to Fran Eickbush and Doug Wilcox, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 
August 2, 1994.

    In agreeing to this land exchange in 1994, the intent of the 
parties was for Grand Ronde to relinquish its rights only to the 
Thompson Strip (and any claims for lost timber income). There was no 
intention by BLM or BIA officials involved in this land swap to 
extinguish the Tribe's land claim rights for the entire State of 
Oregon. These intentions are documented in a House legislative hearing 
before the Subcommittee on Native American Affairs held on July 22, 
1994.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ Federal Recognition of Indian Tribes: Hearing on H.R. 2549, 
H.R. 4462 and H.R. 4709 Before the House Subcommittee on Native 
American Affairs of the House Committee on Natural Resources, 103rd 
Congress, July 22, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In testimony before the Subcommittee, Grand Ronde Chairman Mark 
Mercier stated the following:

        This bill amends the Grand Ronde Reservation Act by adding the 
        new parcel to the existing reservation and relinquishes any 
        claim that the Grand Ronde may have to the land that was 
        incorrectly surveyed. Another section clarifies responsibility 
        for payments to the O&C Counties.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Id., Statement of Mark Mercier, Chairman, Confederated Tribes 
of the Grand Ronde, at 98.

    The Tribe's Congressman at the time, Rep. Mike Kopetski (D-OR), 
confirmed this understanding about the land exchange and the 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
extinguishment of claims to the Thompson Strip:

        Today, parts of the land are owned by 3 private timber 
        companies and the Bureau of Land Management. To alleviate the 
        obvious legal and management problems that arise from the 
        rightful reclamation of their land, the tribe has proposed a 
        land swap. Under this bill, the tribe will relinquish their 
        claim to the 84 acres in exchange for a parcel of 360 acres of 
        BLM land which is adjacent to the tribe's current 
        reservation.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ Id., Statement of Congressman Mike Kopetski (D-OR), at 91-92. 
At the time of the hearing, the BLM had not agreed to a land exchange 
involving 360 acres of land, which was the Tribe's initial bargaining 
position. After further negotiations, the Tribe and the BLM agreed to a 
swap of 240 acres of land as compensation for the loss of the Thompson 
Strip.

    Additionally, the section-by-section analysis on this legislation 
prepared for this 1994 House hearing by the Committee staff stated the 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
following:

        Subsection (a) provides that certain parcels of land described 
        in the Bill . . . are to be added to the Act which established 
        the Grand Ronde reservation in Oregon. A new `subsection' is to 
        be added to the Act which provides that all claims to the land 
        are extinguished and the U.S. and the Tribe are to equally 
        share the liability for any lost revenues to any county because 
        of the land transfer.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ Id., Section-By-Section Analysis of H.R. 4709, at 76. The 
intention of the parties to limit the extinguishment of claims to the 
Thompson Strip is also confirmed in the House Report to this 
legislation, issued on August 16, 1994. See House Report 103-704, at 6 
(1994) (``Section 2 of the bill settles land claims of the Confederated 
Tribes of the Grand Ronde resulting from a survey error in the late 
1800s. In exchange for the addition of 240 acres of Bureau of Land 
Management land to the Tribe's existing reservation, the Tribe 
relinquishes and [sic] claim to the land that was part of their 
historic reservation before the time the Tribe was terminated. In 
addition, the Tribe is responsible for payments, if any, to the Oregon 
and California Counties for future lost revenue from timber sales.'').

    Our Tribe discovered this Thompson Strip issue only recently, when 
working on another amendment to the Grand Ronde Reservation Act. While 
we are not aware of any specific new survey errors or other land claim 
issues, we do want to be proactive about ensuring that the Tribe has 
the right to be compensated should another problem arise. As we re-
acquire lands on and near our Reservation, our staff tells us that we 
occasionally find survey inconsistencies when title searches are 
conducted. We want to be prepared if and when additional errors are 
uncovered.

                          Summary of H.R. 1722

    The language in H.R. 1722 is quite simple. It replaces the phrase 
``State of Oregon'' with the phrase ``the 84 acres known as the 
Thompson Strip.'' By this language, the Tribe would only relinquish its 
claims to the Thompson Strip, which was the intent of the parties in 
our 1994 land exchange.
    It is not Grand Ronde's intention that this technical corrections 
amendment would be used to facilitate Indian gaming, or impact Grand 
Ronde treaty rights (or the treaty rights of any other Oregon tribe). 
For this reason, the proposed legislation would prohibit class II or 
class III gaming on any lands obtained by the Tribe as part of a land 
claim settlement. Additionally, this technical corrections amendment 
would not enlarge, confirm, adjudicate, affect, or modify any treaty 
right of a Federally recognized Indian tribe.
    H.R. 1722 was introduced by Congresswoman Andrea Salinas on March 
22, 2023, and is co-sponsored by all of the other Members of the Oregon 
Congressional Delegation.
    In the 118th Congress, a concern was raised regarding the gaming 
prohibition language in Section 1 of this legislation. This concern 
involved whether Grand Ronde would be able to use any funds provided in 
a future land claim settlement to purchase land for gaming activities 
permitted under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (``IGRA''). While this 
has never been an intention of the Tribe, language has been added to 
the current version of this bill to clarify that the gaming prohibition 
includes ``any real property purchased with funds granted as part of 
any land claim settlement.''

                               H.R. 2839

    During this hearing, the Subcommittee is also considering H.R. 
2839, a bill to permit the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of 
Oregon to negotiate new hunting and fishing agreements with the State 
of Oregon. This Siletz bill is similar to H.R. 2850, a bill to permit 
Grand Ronde to negotiate its own new hunting and fishing agreements 
with the State of Oregon.
    Both bills seek to address the exact same inequity that occurred 
more than 35 years ago. When both Siletz and Grand Ronde were 
negotiating the terms of their respective Reservation Acts in the 
1980s, the State of Oregon sought to limit the hunting and fishing 
rights of both Tribes and their members. As mentioned earlier, Hunting 
and Fishing Agreements with the State of Oregon were executed with both 
Tribes as a condition of State support for their respective Reservation 
Acts. The Agreements have identical language and both contain multiple 
provisions stating that these Agreements are permanent and cannot be 
amended.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ Both Siletz and Grand Ronde Hunting and Fishing Agreements 
were approved by a Federal Court and are subject to a Consent Decree. 
Both Agreements were also ratified in the respective Siletz and Grand 
Ronde Reservation Acts passed in the 1980s.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Federal legislation is required to permit both Tribes to negotiate 
new Hunting and Fishing Agreements with the State of Oregon. H.R. 2839 
and H.R. 2850 amend each Tribe's Reservation Act to permit each Tribe 
to negotiate new Hunting and Fishing Agreements with the State of 
Oregon.
    These bills do not mandate or recommend specific hunting and 
fishing terms between the State and the Tribes. Instead, the 
legislation merely authorizes a process for both Tribes to update their 
1980s-era Agreements with the State.
    The Siletz and Grand Ronde bills have been paired together and 
should remain that way because they involve the same Hunting and 
Fishing Agreements and authorize the same process of negotiation on 
these issues with the State of Oregon. Grand Ronde is deeply 
disappointed that the Siletz bill has been allowed to move forward with 
a Subcommittee hearing before the Grand Ronde bill has had the same 
opportunity.
    Several Tribes in Oregon and Washington State have expressed 
opposition to the Grand Ronde bill, claiming that it will infringe on 
their respective Federal treaty rights to hunt and fish at their 
``usual and accustomed stations.''
    These treaty arguments are manufactured. With Senator Merkley's 
involvement--as the Senate sponsor of both bills--multiple provisions 
were added to the Grand Ronde and Siletz bills clarifying that these 
Hunting and Fishing Agreements with the State of Oregon will not impact 
the treaty rights of any other Tribe. These Agreements would also be 
executed only under State law. None of the parties involved currently 
have--or would have under this legislation--any authority to impact 
Federal treaty rights through Agreements that are drafted and executed 
under Oregon law.
    Additionally, the Tribes in opposition are located east of the 
Cascade Range and have not established any ``usual and accustomed 
stations'' west of the Bonneville Dam on the Columbia River. These 
Tribes are free to negotiate their own Hunting and Fishing Agreements 
with the State, seek State fishing permits, and purchase fee simple 
land on the open market, as Grand Ronde and other Tribes have done. All 
of these activities are pursuant to Oregon State law and do not impact 
any Federal treaty or other legal or sovereign rights.
    There is no reason to hold up the Grand Ronde bill for such 
frivolous reasons. The Grand Ronde and Siletz hunting and fishing bills 
should be paired again.

                               Conclusion

    Thank you for the opportunity to present Grand Ronde's views. We 
hope the Members of the Committee on Natural Resources will support 
H.R. 1722, the Tribe's Thompson Strip legislation, and vote it 
favorably out of Committee.
    At the appropriate time, I am happy to answer any questions that 
the Members of the Subcommittee may have.

                                 ______
                                 

    Ms. Hageman. Thank you, Mr. Langley. The Chair now 
recognizes Chairman Ryman LeBeau for 5 minutes.

 STATEMENT OF THE HON. RYMAN LeBEAU, CHAIRMAN, CHEYENNE RIVER 
             SIOUX TRIBE, EAGLE BUTTE, SOUTH DAKOTA

    Mr. LeBeau. [Speaking Native language.] Thank you for the 
time today, Madam Chairwoman, members of the Committee. My name 
is Ryman LeBeau. I serve as the Chairman of the Cheyenne River 
Sioux Tribe. I thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 
3371, our Wounded Knee Memorial and Sacred Site Act.
    Dusty Johnson offered this bill to restore the lands to 
Indian Country. The Wounded Knee sacred site will be taken in 
restricted fee status with the names of the Tribes, the 
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and the Oglala Sioux Tribe, on the 
title. State taxation is pre-empted, and tribal jurisdiction is 
affirmed. We urge Congress to quickly pass this bill to 
preserve our sacred site.
    We, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, are signatories of the 
1851 Sioux Nation Treaty and the 1868 Great Sioux Nation 
Treaty. My great-great-grandfather, Chief Joseph Four Bear, is 
a signatory, and he signed for our people back in 1868. In the 
1851 treaty, America recognized the Sioux Nation Treaty, 
including the Black Hills.
    America sought Sioux Nation permission for settlers to 
cross our lands to Oregon and California. In the 1868 treaty, 
America pledged to honor that the war between the America and 
the Sioux Nation shall forever cease. The Great Sioux Nation 
reserved western South Dakota, including the Black Hills, as 
our permanent home. We reserved the unceded Indian territory 
and hunting lands.
    We, the Lakota, are connected to the land. Our traditional 
teachings have taught us that we literally come from the land. 
And that would be Wind Cave of the Black Hills, which is within 
western South Dakota. And with this connection and this Wounded 
Knee land, it is very important that we preserve and protect 
these lands for the future generations to come.
    And on these lands, Wounded Knee, 1890, over 300 unarmed 
women and children were massacred by the United States 
military. And this particular parcel of land, 40 acres, are the 
killing fields of our people. So, it is important, again, that 
we take all measures to protect and preserve.
    And with the restricted fee status, which is different than 
the trust status, we usually use trust status throughout Indian 
Country, but in this situation we did not want to use the trust 
status because it is in the name of the United States. So, with 
the restricted fee status, we can put the land in the name of 
the Tribes, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, the Oglala Sioux 
Tribe, and it does not go into the name of the United States. 
We don't want, because of what happened in 1890, for the land 
to go back to the United States. So, it is very important that 
we make that distinguishment, and that is the reason why our 
two Tribes have come together to purchase the land.
    Last year, in October, our two councils, we are the same 
people, we are all Lakota, but we come from different bands. We 
worked together back in October to acquire the land for 
$500,000. In 1868, the land was in the name of the Tribes. Back 
then the Dawes Act in 1934, the allotment process, was allotted 
to Julia Good Medicine, and she sold it to a non-Indian, and 
they created a Sioux incorporation. And at the time, they 
offered the Tribes one seat at the table on that board. As a 
non-Indian corporation, I believe they wanted to develop the 
land at the time.
    But since then they sold to Czywczynski. Mr. Czywczynski 
offered the Tribes $3.5 million for the Tribes to purchase, 
which is a lot of money. Later, after he passed on, the family 
offered to sell it to the Tribes for $500,000. So, that is when 
the two councils, the Oglalas and the Cheyenne River, we came 
together to make that purchase, and we did a covenant among the 
two Tribes. So, there is a lot of partnership that we have 
created, and we look to partner with Congress today to take 
this land into restricted fee status. Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. LeBeau follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Ryman LeBeau, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe
  on H.R. 3371, the Wounded Knee Massacre Memorial and Sacred Site Act
    Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, my name is Ryman LeBeau, 
and I serve as Chairman of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe. I thank you 
for the opportunity to testify on behalf of my Lakota People today on 
the vitally important subject of H.R. 3371, our Wounded Knee Memorial 
and Sacred Site Act.
    Our South Dakota Congressman, Dusty Johnson, offered this bill to 
restore the lands to ``Indian country'' status with reference to our 
1868 Treaty. The Wounded Knee Memorial and Sacred Site Act land will be 
taken in restricted Indian fee title, with the names of our respective 
Tribes on the title.
    We thank Congressman Johnson for his leadership on this important 
matter concerning Wounded Knee. We urge Congress to quickly pass this 
bill and respectfully ask President Biden to sign it into law.
Background: The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe

    At the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, our Lakota People are comprised 
of the Mnicoujou (Plants by the Water), Itazipco (Without Bows), Siha 
Sapa (Blackfoot) and Oohenumpa (Two Kettles) Bands--that is four of the 
seven bands of the Lakota. Chief Big Foot or Spotted Elk was our 
Mnicoujou Itancan (Chief) and he was a relative of Crazy Horse. His 
father was Lone Horn, our Mnicoujou Itancan, who was born in 1790 and 
lived until 1877.
    At Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, our Itancan including Lone Horn are 
signatories to the 1851 Sioux Nation Treaty (Fort Laramie I) and the 
1868 Great Sioux Nation Treaty (Fort Laramie II). Big Foot was a 
signatory to the 1868 Treaty.
The Oceti Sakowin (7 Council Fires of the Great Sioux Nation)

    The Oceti Sakowin, Seven Council Fires of the Great Sioux Nation, 
is an original Native Sovereign Nation. Our Democracy stretches back in 
time to the Creation, when the Creator, Wakan Tanka, Tunkasila, gave 
the first woman and first man the Breath of Life. With the Creator's 
Breath of Life comes liberty, the freedom to follow our sacred visions 
and to protect Unci Maka, Grandmother Earth.
    Lakota Makoce our traditional homeland flows from Minnesota and 
Iowa in the East across the Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas, and Colorado 
west to Wyoming, Montana and north to Canada. Our lands were not part 
of the original 13 Colonies. Prior to America, France and England came 
to engage in the Fur Trade, with our Lakota-Nakota-Dakota Oyate 
(Nation) and together with our sister Native Nations, we clothed 
America and Europe for generations. In Lakota language, our name means 
the Friendly People, and we were healthy and happy in our traditional 
way of life. The White Buffalo Calf Maiden is our spiritual guide from 
the Creator, and she brought the Canupa, sacred pipe, to our Lakota 
Oyate.
The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution

    The Declaration of Independence pronounces the self-evident truths 
that all men [and women] are created equal, endowed with rights to 
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.\1\ In the Constitution of 
the United States, America affirmed the prior Indian treaties entered 
with the Delaware Nation, Six Nations, and Cherokee Nation, among 
others, in the Supremacy Clause, where treaties are nation-to-nation 
agreements classed among the Supreme Law of the Land. The Constitution 
recognizes that ``Indians not taxed'' are ``free persons,'' subject 
primarily to tribal jurisdiction, not American jurisdiction.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ In the Northwest Ordinance, 1787 (amended 1789), America 
pledged that the United States should observe the ``utmost good faith'' 
toward the Indians, our lands and property shall never be taken without 
their consent, and in our property rights and liberty, we should never 
be invaded or disturbed, etc. These fundamental principles were carried 
forward in later territorial acts, including the Kansas-Nebraska Act, 
1854 (treaties to be strictly observed), and the Dakota Territory Act, 
1861 (Indian rights to person and property to be respected).
    \2\ Under our 1868 Treaty, America and the Great Sioux Nation 
agreed that when our Lakota People became U.S. Citizens, we should have 
all of the privileges and immunities of citizens of the U.S. and retain 
all of the benefits of our Treaty. Accordingly, we are dual citizens of 
the Great Sioux Nation and the United States of America.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 1804, Lewis and Clark came up the Missouri River and met our 
Lakota People at the Bad River across from Pierre, South Dakota and our 
Sioux Nation Chiefs imposed a tax on their travel upriver.\3\ In 1805, 
America came to the Sioux Nation of St. Peter's and St. Paul's Rivers 
and asked our Dakota People to acknowledge to square mile areas as 
under American sovereignty, and our Nation did so through a treaty of 
peace and friendship while reserving our original right to use and 
traverse the lands. After the War of 1812, America agreed with England 
that Indian nations should be on the same basis after the war as 
before, that is: sovereign nations. In 1815, America entered the Treaty 
with the Teton Sioux, pledging peace and friendship.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ In 1803, President Jefferson, on behalf of America, and Emperor 
Napoleon, on behalf of France, entered the Louisiana Purchase Treaty, 
wherein France purported to sell the ``Louisiana Territory'' to 
America. Naturally, Native Sovereign Nations did not agree to any such 
sale, and our lands could not be encumbered without our consent under 
the law of Nations. Moreover, America bound itself to comply with 
existing treaties between Spain and Indian nations, until such time as 
America entered its own treaties with Indian nations based upon mutual 
consent. See Louisiana Purchase Treaty, Article VI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 1851, America entered the first Fort Laramie Treaty with the 
Sioux Nation, et al, recognizing Sioux Nation territory, including the 
Black Hills, and providing for consensual dispute resolution. America 
sought Sioux Nation permission for settlers to traverse our lands to 
Oregon Territory and California gold mines.
    In 1868, at the end of the Powder River War, America entered the 
second Fort Laramie Treaty with the Great Sioux Nation. The United 
States pledged its honor that war between America and the Great Sioux 
Nation shall forever cease, and the Great Sioux Nation reserved all 
western South Dakota and certain lands in Nebraska and North Dakota as 
our permanent home together with 44 million acres in North Dakota, 
Montana, Wyoming, Nebraska, Colorado, and Kansas as unceded Indian 
territory and hunting lands.
    At the same time the 1868 Great Sioux Nation Treaty was negotiated 
under the Indian Peace Policy, the Fourteenth Amendment was drafted, 
affirmed, and ratified, recognizing that America dealt with Indian 
nations through treaty, tribal citizens were subject to tribal 
jurisdiction, and repeating the original Constitution's reference to 
``Indians not taxed.''
The Great Sioux War, 1876-77
    In his second Inaugural Address, 1873, President Grant said we must 
have ``Civilization'' because otherwise there would be a ``War of 
Extermination'' against Native Peoples. In 1874, Lt. Colonel George 
Custer went on a ``secret'' exploratory expedition to the Black Hills, 
where he invited regional and national newspaper reporters, starting a 
gold rush in the Black Hills. In 1875, President Grant sent a treaty 
commission to buy the Black Hills for $1 per acre, and the Sioux 
Nation, as was our treaty right, refused to consent to the sale of our 
``permanent home'' in the Black Hills.
    In January 1876, President Grant initiated the Great Sioux War to 
take the Black Hills without our consent or compensation. In June 1876, 
Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse, and the Free Lakota were camped, with the 
Cheyenne at the Little Big Horn, on our treaty reserved unceded Indian 
territory. Sitting Bull dreamed that the U.S. Cavalry were going to 
fall upside down into the Sioux Nation village, indicating a great 
Sioux Nation victory.
    On June 25, 1876, Lt. Colonel (Brevet General) George Custer 
ordered the 7th Cavalry to attack the Little Big Horn village without 
provocation. Major Reno marched towards the village, after initiating 
rifle fire against the village, Reno met stiff opposition and 
retreated. Major Reno and Captain Benteen held out on a high bluff 
above the Little Big Horn and General Terry arrived the next day to 
rescue Reno and Benteen. Custer, with 225 men of the 7th Cavalry, 
marched around the mountains and attacked the village from across the 
Little Big Horn River, yet never made it across because he was shot in 
the chest by Chief White Bull. After Custer and his men retreated up 
the mountain at Custer Battlefield, he was surrounded and by late 
afternoon, he and his men were no more.
    Congress sent more Armies and after many battles, America confined 
our Lakota People to the reservation. In 1877, Congress 
unconstitutionally seized the Black Hills, in a seven million acre 
taking in violation of the 1868 Sioux Nation Treaty. United States v. 
Sioux Nation, 448 U.S. 371 (1980). Congress also seized 44 million 
acres of our unceded Indian territory and hunting lands. The Army 
exterminated the Buffalo, leaving our Lakota People starving and 
dependent on government rations.
The Killing of Sitting Bull

    In 1888-89, Congress sent the Crook commission to take an 
additional 9.5 million acres from the center of the Great Sioux 
Reservation. The so-called 1889 ``Sioux Agreement'' divided our Sioux 
Nation tribes into separate smaller reservations, including the 
Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation and the Pine Ridge (Oglala Sioux) 
Reservation. Sitting Bull opposed the Agreement, and Sioux Nation 
leaders asked General Crook to double the ``rations'' distributed among 
the Lakota People, because everyone was hungry after the demise of the 
Buffalo, Elk, Antelope and Deer, and wild game caused by the influx of 
settlers. General Crook asked President Cleveland to double the 
rations, yet the Secretary of the Interior intervened with a 
recommendation to cut rations in half to force the Sioux Nation to 
adopt farming.
    In 1890, with our People starving, the Ghost Dance took hold on the 
Sioux Reservations, after Chief Wovoka of the Paiutes had a vision of 
Jesus Christ coming to save American Indians. Indian agents panicked 
and General Myles ordered the arrest of Sitting Bull, who was blamed 
for the unrest, with a plan to send him to a military prison and sent 
Buffalo Bill, Sitting Bull's friend, to make the arrest without 
trouble. In a bureaucratic turf war, when Buffalo Bill arrived at 
Standing Rock Reservation, U.S. Indian Agent McLaughlin wired 
Washington, D.C. to ask the President to rescind Buffalo Bill's 
authority and President Harrison did so. (Later, Buffalo Bill said the 
President personally expressed his regret for this action to him).
    A few days later, McLaughlin wrote out an arrest warrant for 
Sitting Bull, with the message ``under no circumstances let Sitting 
Bull escape.'' He sent 43 BIA Police before dawn to arrest Sitting 
Bull, with 110 U.S. Cavalry soldiers over the hill. On December 15, 
1890, when the BIA Police were taking Sitting Bull away from his home, 
a Lakota warrior drew his gun in defense of Sitting Bull. Bull Head, 
Lieutenant BIA Police shot Sitting Bull in the back and Red Tomahawk, 
his Sergeant, shot Sitting Bull in the head. Sitting Bull was killed 
instantly. A general melee ensued, and Bull Head and several BIA police 
were killed, as were several Ghost Dancers.
    About 100 of Sitting Bull's Hunkpapa Lakota fled south to Chief Big 
Foot, leader of our Minicoujou Lakota at Cheyenne River Reservation. 
Big Foot was already planning to travel to Pine Ridge to see Chief Red 
Cloud to help him negotiate with U.S. Army leaders, so some of Sitting 
Bull's Hunkpapa Lakota travelled with them.
The 7th Cavalry's Massacre of the Disarmed Lakota at Wounded Knee

    Chief Big Foot was sick with pneumonia as the Mnicoujou made their 
way to Pine Ridge. The cold winter on the prairie in western South 
Dakota often reaches 20 degrees below zero (F) and with the wind chill, 
the temperature can feel like 50 degrees below zero. Major Whitside 
told Big Foot and his people that they could not go to Pine Ridge but 
must go to the military camp at Wounded Knee, where the Army intended 
to disarm our Lakota men, women, and children, and take all their 
horses. Chief Big Foot asked the Cavalry to take the Lakota to Pine 
Ridge, but they refused.
    In the bitter cold of December 1890, the 7th Cavalry per Colonel 
Forsyth ordered our Mnicoujou and Hunkpapa Lakota relatives to camp 
under the Hotchkiss Guns. At 6 a.m. in the morning on December 29, 
1890, the Army line up all the men and large boys (9 years old and 
older) in front of the soldiers firing line and forcibly disarmed them. 
As Black Coyote, the last man was disarmed he objected that he had just 
bought his gun, the soldiers seized him roughly and the gun went off 
straight up in the air. Then with a sound like canvas tearing, the 
Cavalry commenced firing at the disarmed line of men in front of them 
and the Hotchkiss guns fired throughout the camp killing children, 
women, and old men. Soldiers shot women with babies on their back. The 
shooting went on for hours. When little boys hid in a ravine, the 
soldiers called to them that they were safe now, they could come out. 
When the boys came out from the ravine, the soldiers shot them.
    Our Mnicoujou relative, Dewey Beard lost his parents, his wife, and 
babies that day, and was shot several times. He said simply, ``They 
murdered us.'' Dewey Beard was known as Wasu Maza, ``Iron Hail,'' for 
his many wounds sustained at Wounded Knee. Beard was the last living 
Wounded Knee survivor, and he said that 350 of our Lakota were 
massacred that day in December 1890.
    Upon hearing of the Massacre, General Nelson A. Miles said, Wounded 
Knee was ``the most abominable criminal military blunder and a horrible 
massacre of women and children.'' Congress and the President ignored 
General Miles and awarded 24 medals to the soldiers who killed women 
and children at Wounded Knee.
    My grandmother, Marcella LeBeau, served as a nurse in the U.S. Army 
in France during the World War II Battle of the Bulge. She treated 
America's wounded soldiers from the Battle.
    When she was 100 years old, she asked Congress to pass the Removing 
the Stain Act to rescind the medals issued to soldiers of the Wounded 
Knee Massacre. She said that there is a pervasive sadness among our 
Lakota People due to the tragic loss of our Lakota People at Wounded 
Knee.
Wounded Knee Memorial and Sacred Site Lands

    Recently, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe was told that 40 acres of 
land adjacent to the Granite Obelisk at Wounded Knee was for sale and 
the Oglala Sioux Tribe was working to buy the land. These acres are 
part of the Wounded Knee Massacre site, and because we lost our 
relatives on these lands, they are sacred to us as Memorial and Sacred 
Site Land. At Cheyenne River, we are pleased to participate with the 
Oglala Sioux Tribe to recover these Wounded Knee lands, which are a 
portion of the massacre site. Together with Oglala, our Tribe pledged 
that the lands will be preserved as a Sacred Site and Memorial, with no 
commercial development.
    On behalf of our relatives who lost their lives at Wounded Knee, we 
say Mitakuye Oyasin, ``All My Relatives.'' We wish them peace in their 
resting place among the stars of the Milky Way.
    Our South Dakota Congressman, Dusty Johnson, offered this bill to 
restore the lands to ``Indian country'' status with reference to our 
1868 Treaty by acknowledging the undivided 49% Cheyenne River Sioux 
Tribe title and the undivided 51% Oglala Sioux Tribe title. The land 
will be taken in restricted Indian fee title, with the names of our 
respective Tribes on the title.
    We thank Congressman Johnson for his leadership on this important 
matter concerning Wounded Knee and we thank the Chairman and Committee 
Members for this hearing. We urge Congress to quickly pass this bill 
and respectfully ask President Biden to sign it into law.

                                 ______
                                 

    Ms. Hageman. Thank you, Mr. LeBeau, for your testimony. The 
Chair now recognizes President Frank Star Comes Out for 5 
minutes.

 STATEMENT OF THE HON. FRANK STAR COMES OUT, PRESIDENT, OGLALA 
             SIOUX TRIBE, PINE RIDGE, SOUTH DAKOTA

    Mr. Star Comes Out. [Speaking Native language.] Madam 
Chair, Ranking Members, and Subcommittee, my name is Frank Star 
Comes Out. I am the President of Oglala Sioux Tribe and a 
direct descendant of Chief Big Foot, also known as Spotted Elk, 
who was massacred at Wounded Knee.
    The Wounded Knee descendants designated Mr. Cedric Broken 
Nose to come with me today. Like me, he is also a direct 
descendant of Chief Big Foot. He asked me to share this message 
with you, and I quote, ``The land at Wounded Knee is sacred, as 
300 or more of our ancestors lay buried there. The land needs 
to be respected as a memorial site no different than Arlington 
National Cemetery.''
    My Tribe is one of the tribes of the great Sioux Nation, 
referred to as the Oceti Sakowin, which means the seven council 
fires. The Oceti Sakowin consists of the Dakota, Lakota, and 
Nakota people. The Oglala are one of the seven bands of Lakota. 
We are the people of Crazy Horse, Red Cloud, Little Wound, 
American Horse, and many other great leaders. We signed the 
Fort Laramie Treaties of 1851 and 1868.
    In the Treaty of 1868, the United States promised that our 
land would be set apart for an absolute and undisturbed use and 
occupation of our Oceti Sakowin as a permanent home. The United 
States also promised in the treaty that war shall forever 
cease. The United States broke the treaty by invading our 
treaty lands and waging war against our people. In 1877, the 
United States stole the Black Hills and other lands from our 
people. Then, in 1889, the United States divided the Oceti 
Sakowin into several separate tribes as separate reservations.
    Despite this, the Tribe of the Oceti Sakowin continued to 
unite on separate matters of national concern. Our recovery of 
lands at Wounded Knee is the latest example of our efforts to 
protect our rights and sacred lands. In October 2022, the 
Oglala Sioux Tribe and the Cheyenne River Tribe came together 
to purchase a 40-acre parcel at the site of the Wounded Knee 
massacre. We reclaim the sacred ground not just for ourselves, 
but for all members of the Oceti Sakowin. We have pledged 
through the binding covenant that the land will be forever as a 
memorial and sacred site without commercial development. It is 
hallowed ground, and it would always be honored and respected 
as hallowed ground, a sacred site.
    The Wounded Knee massacre is one of the darkest events in 
the history of the United States. It was a senseless, cruel, 
and unjustifiable massacre of hundreds of Indian men, women, 
and children by the United States. Our people have grieved for 
well over a century in genocidal attack on our people and our 
way of life that took place at Wounded Knee.

    In 1990, Congress acknowledged the tragedy and historical 
significance of the Wounded Knee massacre, and expressed its 
deepest regret to our people. That was an important step in the 
healing process. H.R. 3371 represents another important step in 
that process. Under this bill, our Wounded Knee land will be 
held in restricted fee status. This means that the land will be 
owned by the Oglala Sioux Tribe and the Cheyenne River Sioux 
Tribe. And at the same time, it will be protected by Federal 
law, including Federal restrictions against alienation, and it 
will be free from state and local taxation.

    We thank Representative Johnson for introducing the bill. 
And it is an important step forward in our Nation-to-Nation 
relationship with the United States Government.

    [Speaking Native language.]

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Star Comes Out follows:]
  Prepared Statement of Frank Star Comes Out, President, Oglala Sioux 
                                 Tribe
  on H.R. 3371, the Wounded Knee Massacre Memorial And Sacred Site Act

    Chairwoman Hageman, Ranking Member Leger-Fernandez, and members of 
the Subcommittee, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to testify 
today concerning H.R. 3371, the Wounded Knee Massacre Memorial and 
Sacred Site Act. I am the President of the Oglala Sioux Tribe and it is 
my privilege and honor to appear before you today to testify in support 
of this important bill.

                              INTRODUCTION

    In October 2022, the Oglala Sioux Tribe and the Cheyenne River 
Sioux Tribe came together to purchase a 40-acre parcel of land at the 
site of the Wounded Knee Massacre of December 29, 1890. The land had 
been owned by non-Indians for many decades. By working together, our 
Tribes were able to bring ownership and stewardship of the land back to 
our people. This was an historic event for our Tribes, one we hope will 
lead to true healing for the descendants of victims and survivors of 
the Wounded Knee Massacre.

    The Oglala Sioux Tribe and the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe reclaimed 
this sacred ground for the benefit of all members of the Great Sioux 
Nation (which we refer to as Oceti Sakowin, which means ``Seven Council 
Fires''), including all descendants of victims and survivors of the 
Wounded Knee Massacre. We have pledged, through a binding covenant, 
that the land will be held in perpetuity as a memorial and sacred site, 
without commercial development. It is hallowed ground and it will 
always be honored and respected as hallowed ground.

    The Wounded Knee Massacre Memorial and Sacred Site Act is the next 
step in the healing process. It directs the Secretary of the Interior 
to take all actions necessary for this land to be held in restricted 
fee status by the Oglala Sioux Tribe and the Cheyenne River Sioux 
Tribe. This is important for our people because it means the land will 
be protected by all Federal laws relating to Indian Country, including 
the restriction against alienation in 25 U.S.C. Sec. 177. It will also 
be free from state and local taxation and interference.

    The Act recognizes that the land is within the Pine Ridge Indian 
Reservation of the Oglala Sioux Tribe, and it is also within the 
treaty-protected territory of the Oceti Sakowin, as recognized and 
affirmed in the Fort Laramie Treaties of 1851 and 1868 between the 
United States and the Oceti Sakowin. Federal allotment policies of the 
late 19th and early 20th centuries allowed the land to fall into non-
Indian ownership, but now, with the aid of H.R. 3371, the land never 
will be lost again. It will be restored to its original status as 
Indian treaty land and it will be forever protected from alienation 
from tribal ownership.

    The remainder of my testimony is divided into three parts: part one 
provides important historical information on the Oglala Sioux Tribe and 
the Oceti Sakowin; part two addresses the Wounded Knee Massacre of 
December 29, 1890; and part three addresses the important role the 
reclamation and protection of land at the Wounded Knee Massacre site 
plays in the spiritual healing of the Oceti Sakowin.

I. THE OGLALA SIOUX TRIBE AND THE OCETI SAKOWIN

    The Oglala Sioux Tribe is a federally recognized Indian Tribe, a 
constituent Tribe of the Great Sioux Nation, which, again, we refer to 
as Oceti Sakowin. We are a signatory to the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1851 
, 11 Stat. 749 (Sept. 17, 1851), and the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868, 
15 Stat. 635 (Apr. 29, 1868).

    The Oceti Sakowin is composed of the Dakota (Santee), Lakota 
(Teton), and Nakota (Yankton). The names Dakota, Lakota, and Nakota 
mean ``considered friends,'' and, together, the Dakota, Lakota, and 
Nakota form the ``alliance of friends.''

    Historically, the Oceti Sakowin exercised its sovereign powers on 
matters of national concern through the Oceti Sakowin, or Seven Council 
Fires of the Oceti Sakowin.

    The Lakota are one of the Seven Council Fires of the Oceti Sakowin, 
and in turn, the Oglala are one of the seven bands of the Lakota. The 
Oglala are the people of Crazy Horse, Red Cloud, Little Wound, and 
American Horse, and many other noted leaders.

    In the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868, the United States promised that 
all land west of the Missouri River in present-day South Dakota, 
together with other designated lands, would be ``set apart for the 
absolute and undisturbed use and occupation'' of the Oceti Sakowin as a 
``permanent home.'' Arts. 2&7. The United States also promised in the 
Treaty that war shall ``forever cease'' with the Oceti Sakowin. Art. 1.
    The United States broke the Treaty by invading treaty lands and 
waging war against our people. After the defeat of the United States 
and the Seventh Cavalry at the Battle of Little Bighorn in June 1876, 
Congress attached a ``Sell or Starve'' rider to the Indian 
Appropriations Act of 1876, 19 Stat. 176, which cut off rations to our 
people in an attempt to coerce us to sell the Black Hills to the United 
States. Yet, we stood firm, and the United States was unable to secure 
our consent to the sale of the Black Hills. We said then--and we have 
repeated for generations--that the Black Hills are not for sale.
    In the Act of February 28, 1877, 19 Stat. 254, the United States 
stole the Black Hills and other lands from the Oceti Sakowin. The 
United States Supreme Court acknowledged the illegality of the taking 
of the Black Hills in the case of U.S. v. Sioux Nation, 448 U.S. 371 
(1980). Later, through the Act of March 2, 1889, 25 Stat. 888, the 
United States divided the Oceti Sakowin into separate Tribes at 
separate reservations.
    Today, there are sixteen federally recognized Sioux Tribes on 
sixteen reservations in the Dakotas, Minnesota, Montana, and Nebraska. 
Our Oglala people are now organized as the Oglala Sioux Tribe of the 
Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota and Nebraska. The other 
bands of the Lakota are the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the Cheyenne 
River Indian Reservation in South Dakota (Itazipco, Miniconjou, 
Oohenumpa, and Siha Sapa), the Rosebud Sioux Tribe of the Rosebud 
Indian Reservation in South Dakota (Sichangu), and the Standing Rock 
Sioux Tribe of the Standing Rock Indian Reservation in North Dakota and 
South Dakota (Hunkpapa).
    Despite our geographic separation, the Oceti Sakowin continue to 
unite on matters of national concern. For example, the Oceti Sakowin 
fought for redress for the taking of the Black Hills for over a 
century, eventually winning the largest Indian claims judgment ever 
awarded against the United States. We declined to accept the award 
because it did not include the return of land by the United States, and 
together, we continue to seek the return of the Black Hills.
    Our Sioux Tribes have come together on many other matters, 
including the defense of sovereignty and self-government against the 
assertion of state jurisdiction under Public Law 83-280, the protection 
of our water and natural resources through the Great Plains Water 
Alliance, the defense of Indian interests under the Indian Child 
Welfare Act, and inter-tribal coalitions against domestic violence.
    Today, the Lakota, Dakota, and Nakota of the Oceti Sakowin are 
represented in the Great Plains Tribal Chairmen's Association, an 
intertribal corporation organized under Section 17 of the Indian 
Reorganization Act of 1934 to promote the sovereign interests of Tribes 
of the Oceti Sakowin and the Great Plains region.
    The purchase of land at Wounded Knee is the latest example of our 
Tribes coming together to protect the rights, interests, and sacred 
lands of the Oceti Sakowin.
II. THE WOUNDED KNEE MASSACRE OF DECEMBER 29, 1890

    The Wounded Knee Massacre is one of the darkest events in the 
histories of the United States and the Oceti Sakowin. It was a 
senseless, cruel, and unjustifiable massacre of hundreds of Indian men, 
women, and children by the Seventh Cavalry.
    Shortly after the massacre, General Nelson A. Miles, the commanding 
officer of the Military Division of the Missouri in the U.S. Army, 
described the massacre as ``the most abominable, criminal military 
blunder and a horrible massacre of women and children.'' \1\ Years 
later, General Miles told the Commissioner of Indian Affairs that the 
massacre was ``most reprehensible,'' ``most unjustifiable,'' and 
``worthy of the severest condemnation.'' \2\ We agree.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ General Miles Letter to Mary Miles, Jan. 15, 1891, quoted in 
Virginia Johnson, The Unregimented General: A Biography of Nelson A. 
Miles 294 (Boston, 1962).
    \2\ General Miles Letter to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Mar. 
13, 1917, quoted in Elain Goodale Eastman, The Ghost Dance War and 
Wounded Knee Massacre of 1890-91, Nebraska History, XXVI 39 (Jan.-Mar. 
1945).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Our people have grieved for well over a century the loss of life 
and the genocidal attack on our people and our way of life that took 
place at Wounded Knee. The Oglala Sioux Tribe has called upon the 
United States to atone for the massacre, and our calls for atonement 
have been echoed by the Wounded Knee Survivors Association, the 
National Congress of American Indians, our sister Tribes, and many 
other Tribes and organizations.
    In Senate Concurrent Resolution 153 of the 101st Congress (Oct. 25, 
1990), the U.S. Congress acknowledged the ``tragedy'' and ``historical 
significance'' of the Wounded Knee Massacre and expressed its ``deep 
regret'' to our people and in particular to the descendants of the 
victims and survivors for this terrible tragedy. Congress found that, 
on December 29, 1890, the United States Cavalry engaged in ``armed 
conflict'' against Sioux Indians gathered at Wounded Knee, ``resulting 
in the tragic death and injury of approximately 350-375 Indian men, 
women, and children.''
    Senate Concurrent Resolution 153 was an important step in the 
healing process. We believe H.R. 3371 represents another important step 
in that process. Through this important bill, the United States is 
recognizing the sacred nature of our Wounded Knee land and agreeing to 
use the full weight of American law to protect that land, safeguarding 
it from state and local taxation and protecting it against alienation 
without our consent.
III. THE RECLAMATION OF SACRED LAND AT WOUNDED KNEE AND THE HEALING OF 
        OUR OCETI SAKOWIN

    Wounded Knee, known as Cankpe Opi in Lakota, is a sacred site for 
the Oglala Sioux Tribe, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, and the Oceti 
Sakowin. The Oglala Sioux Tribe and the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe 
reclaimed 40 acres of land at Wounded Knee for the benefit of the Oceti 
Sakowin and, together, we pledged that the land will be held in 
perpetuity as a memorial and sacred site, without commercial 
development.
    The Wounded Knee land will be used for sacred purposes and 
remembrance, including ceremonies and prayer, and the descendants of 
victims and survivors of the Wounded Knee Massacre will be consulted 
about the proper care and maintenance of the land as a memorial and 
sacred site and about the ceremonies and activities to be conducted on 
the land.
    We are pleased that Representative Dusty Johnson (R-SD) has 
introduced H.R. 3371 to place this sacred land in restricted fee status 
and to protect the land from alienation and outside interference and 
control. This is an important step for the healing of the people of our 
Oceti Sakowin. This is an important step in the histories of the United 
States and the Oceti Sakowin. And, this is an important step for our 
government-to-government relationship.

                               CONCLUSION

    We respectfully ask the Indian and Insular Affairs Subcommittee--
and the Committee on Natural Resources--to approve H.R. 3371 and to 
work diligently with the rest of Congress to enact this important and 
historic bill during this session of Congress.

                                 ______
                                 

    Ms. Hageman. Thank you, President Stars Comes Out.
    At this time, the Chair now recognizes Ms. Francys Crevier 
for 5 minutes.

 STATEMENT OF FRANCYS CREVIER, CEO, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF URBAN 
                 INDIAN HEALTH, WASHINGTON, DC

    Ms. Crevier. Good morning, everyone. My name is Francys 
Crevier. I am Algonquin, and I am the CEO for the National 
Council of Urban Indian Health, or NCUIH.
    I would like to clarify a statement made by the last panel. 
I have never heard UIOs be considered grantees, as they stated, 
and I think that is an acknowledgment of the lack of trust 
obligation HHS feels that it has. UIOs were established under 
the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, so it ignores Congress' 
intent to ensure that the trust obligation follows us into 
urban settings. That is the importance of this policy itself, 
is to ensure that we are not treated the same as other 
grantees, given the trust obligation we have.
    We are the national representative for the urban Indian 
organizations receiving grants under the Indian Health Care 
Improvement Act, or IHCIA, and the American Indians and Alaska 
Native patients they serve. UIOs are the third component of the 
IHS system responsible for administering the trust obligation 
of health care to patients in urban areas.
    I would like to thank the Chairwoman, the Ranking Member, 
and the members of the Subcommittee today for the opportunity 
to testify on H.R. 630.
    This legislation would require all agencies of Health and 
Human Services to confer with UIOs on matters relating to the 
provision of health care to Native people. An urban confer is 
an open and free exchange of information and opinions that 
leads to a mutual understanding and comprehension, and 
emphasizes trust, respect, and shared responsibility. It gives 
UIOs a mechanism to initiate discussions on policies that are 
impacting their communities, and requires HHS to take their 
concerns into consideration.
    As of today, when we submit letters to HHS regarding our 
issues, they are not required to respond due to the lack of a 
confer policy, meaning 70 percent of our population often isn't 
considered when it comes to HHS initiatives. How can the 
government fulfill its health care obligation without 
considering the 70 percent of us? The answer is, it can't.
    According to a recent CDC report, the only group, the only 
group to die at a higher rate from COVID-19 than Native people 
is those 85 and older. This is negligence, and a flagrant 
violation of the trust obligation. This must stop now. Our life 
expectancy was reduced by almost 7 years. Our suicide rate has 
increased 20 percent. We need this policy and full funding to 
support Indian Country's public health emergency.
    This legislation is critical to improving health care 
delivery to our people, and we are grateful for Ranking Member 
Grijalva for reintroducing this bill.
    Congress has declared it the national policy to ensure 
maximum Indian participation in the direction of health care 
services so as to render the persons administering such 
services and the services themselves more responsive to the 
needs and desires of Indian communities. Through IHCIA, IHS has 
a legal obligation to confer with UIOs, which is essential to 
the fulfillment of this national policy.
    Unfortunately, this obligation does not apply to HHS or any 
of its agencies outside of IHS, despite their trust obligation 
to all Native people, no matter where they live. UIOs need 
avenues for direct communication with all agencies charged with 
overseeing the health of their Native patients. It is critical 
that HHS and all agencies it operates establish a formal confer 
process. No policy about us without us.
    The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated how the lack of an urban 
confer requirement can have real-world impacts. For instance, 
vital information regarding distribution for the initial COVID 
vaccine rollout was not communicated with UIOs, which resulted 
in a delayed distribution to many, and delayed lifesaving 
treatment due to this bureaucracy. HHS only directed tribal 
facilities, which we are not, to choose between receiving 
vaccines through the state or through IHS, and it is unclear if 
our facilities also needed to choose a vaccine distribution 
program.
    Eventually, after NCUIH investigated and realized HHS had 
overlooked UIOs, HHS asked UIOs to make this decision on the 
same day of the initial deadline. This issue delayed rollouts 
because the government was not prepared to distribute vaccines 
through our clinics. IHS confirmed in the 2021 hearing on this 
bill on the record that the lack of an urban confer between HHS 
and UIOs delayed patient access to vaccines. Clearly, the 
current lack of an HHS urban confer is a significant roadblock 
to UIOs and the Federal Government improving health care 
services to Natives living in urban areas.
    Federal agencies must realize over 70 percent of us are in 
urban areas, and that our clinics are a critical part of 
fulfilling this trust obligation in the Indian Health System. 
It is time to act so Native lives are no longer jeopardized by 
the lack of communication between HHS agencies. This is a 
common-sense solution supported by the National Congress of 
American Indians.
    And I want to make this very clear: urban confer does not 
supplant or otherwise impact tribal consultation or government-
to-government relationship with tribes and Federal agencies. 
The Federal Government should always consult with tribes.
    Further, we have bipartisan support from Congress with this 
bill passing the House last Congress by 406 votes. And 
recently, the Senate bipartisan companion bill introduced by 
Senators Smith and Mullin passed out of the Senate Committee on 
Indian Affairs.
    This is a sound, bipartisan bill that has no cost. It is a 
simple policy fix that is necessary, and HHS has assured us 
they cannot act without legislation. And it is time to get this 
done to ensure access to lifesaving health services.
    We must move past the notion that only IHS has a trust 
obligation to Native people, as the Federal Government as a 
whole has a responsibility to provide health care for all 
Native people. Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Crevier follows:]
Prepared Statement of Francys Crevier, National Council of Urban Indian 
                             Health (NCUIH)
                              on H.R. 630
    My name is Francys Crevier, I am Algonquin and the Chief Executive 
Officer of the National Council of Urban Indian Health (NCUIH), the 
national representative of urban Indian organizations receiving grants 
under Title V of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (IHCIA) and the 
American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/ANs) patients they serve. On 
behalf of NCUIH and these 41 Urban Indian Organizations (UIOs), I would 
like to thank Chair Hageman, Ranking Member Leger Fernandez, and 
members of the Subcommittee for the opportunity to testify at this 
hearing.
    Today, I am submitting testimony in support of the Urban Indian 
Health Confer Act (H.R. 630), which requires the Secretary of the U.S. 
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to ensure the 
Department's agencies and offices confer with UIOs on matters relating 
to health care for AI/ANs living in urban areas.\1\ This legislation 
enables UIOs to engage in important dialogue with HHS agencies and 
offices so that they become more responsive to the health needs of 
urban Indian communities. This bipartisan legislation will improve 
communication between HHS and UIOs on issues, policies, and programs 
that affect the health of urban AI/AN people and, in turn, will improve 
healthcare and healthcare access for AI/AN people residing in urban 
areas. Currently, when we submit letters to HHS regarding our issues, 
they can be thrown away and not taken into consideration due to the 
lack of a confer policy, meaning 70% of our population isn't considered 
when it comes to HHS initiatives. CDC published a report last month 
that said the highest number of deaths of COVID-19 after 85+ year olds, 
are AI/ANs.\2\ This must stop now. This is negligence and a flagrant 
violation of the trust obligation. Our life expectancy was reduced by 
almost 7 years, our suicide rate is at 30%--we need this policy and 
full funding to support this Indian Country's public health emergency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ 118 H.R. 630, available at: https://www.Congress.gov/118/bills/
hr630/BILLS-118hr630ih.pdf
    \2\ Farida B. Ahmad, COVID-19 Mortality Update--United States, 
2022, 72 MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep (2023), https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/
volumes/72/wr/mm7218a4.html (last visited Jun 5, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Most importantly, this legislation will work to fulfill the federal 
government's trust responsibility to provide healthcare to AI/ANs no 
matter where they live.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ 25 U.S.C. Sec. 1601.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For the reasons stated herein, I urge the Members of this Committee 
to act on their commitment to improve Indian health and move forward on 
this legislation.
Background on Urban Indian Organizations

    The Declaration of National Indian Health Policy in IHCIA states 
that: ``Congress declares that it is the policy of this Nation, in 
fulfillment of its special trust responsibilities and legal obligations 
to Indians to ensure the highest possible health status for Indians and 
urban Indians and to provide all resources necessary to effect that 
policy.'' \4\ In fulfillment of the National Indian Health Policy, the 
Indian Health Service funds three health programs to provide health 
care to AI/ANs: IHS sites, tribally operated health programs, and UIOs 
(referred to as the I/T/U system).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ 25 U.S.C. Sec. 1602(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As a preliminary issue, ``urban Indian'' refers to any AI/AN person 
who is not living on a reservation, either permanently or temporarily. 
UIOs were created in the 1950s by American Indians and Alaska Natives 
living in urban areas, with the support of Tribal leaders, to address 
severe problems with health, education, employment, and housing caused 
by the federal government's forced relocation policies.\5\ Congress 
formally incorporated UIOs into the Indian Health System in 1976 with 
the passage of IHCIA. Today, UIOs continue to play a critical role in 
fulfilling the federal government's responsibility to provide health 
care for AI/ANs and are an integral part of the Indian health system. 
UIOs work to provide high-quality, culturally competent care to the 
over 70% of AI/ANs living in urban settings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Relocation, National Council for Urban Indian Health, 2018. 
2018_0519_Relocation.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The 41 IHS-contracted UIOs operate over 85 facilities, providing 
critically important healthcare services to Native people living in 
urban areas, including primary care services, mental and behavioral 
health services, and traditional medicine. UIOs are more than just 
healthcare providers. They provide services addressing social 
determinants of health like housing, nutrition, and domestic violence 
and are also cultural hubs for Native people.
Establish Urban Confer Between HHS Agencies and UIOs

    It is well established that ``federal health services to maintain 
and improve the health of . . . [AI/ANs] are consistent with and 
required by the Federal Government's historical and unique legal 
relationship with, and resulting responsibility to, the American Indian 
people.'' \6\ The United States cannot fulfill the trust responsibility 
without ensuring that HHS, the Department responsible for 
``enhance[ing] the health and well-being of all Americans, by providing 
for effective health and human services,'' \7\ engages with UIOs on 
matters that relate to AI/AN health. Unfortunately, in the absence of 
an urban confer requirement, HHS and many of the agencies and offices 
within HHS fail to adequately communicate with UIOs and include UIOs in 
the direction of healthcare services and programs that affect UIO 
patients.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ 25 U.S.C. Sec. 1601.
    \7\ Health and Human Services, About HHS, https://www.hhs.gov/
about/index.html (last visited May 31, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    An Urban Confer is an open and free exchange of information and 
opinions that leads to mutual understanding and comprehension and 
emphasizes trust, respect, and shared responsibility.\8\ Urban confer 
is established mechanism for dialogue between the federal government 
and UIOs that are a response to decades of deliberate federal efforts 
(i.e., forced assimilation, termination, relocation) that resulted in 
well over seventy percent (70%) of AI/AN people living outside of 
Tribal jurisdictions, thus making Urban Confer integral to addressing 
the AI/AN health needs. Urban Confer helps coordinate and integrate 
care between UIOs and the federal agencies and offices that work to 
fulfill the United States' national policy, set forth by Congress in 
IHCIA ``to ensure maximum Indian participation in the direction of 
health care services so as to render the persons administering such 
services and the services themselves more responsive to the needs and 
desires of Indian communities.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ 25 U.S.C. Sec. 1660d.
    \9\ 25 U.S.C. Sec. 1602.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Currently, only IHS has a legal obligation to confer with UIOs.\10\ 
Because of this, IHS has developed a robust Urban Confer policy, which 
has proven to be an invaluable venue for UIOs to share feedback, 
recommendations, and testimony on the unique needs of AI/ANs living in 
urban areas. According to IHS ``[t]he IHS Urban Confer Policy provides 
guidance for seeking input from Urban Indian Organization Leaders on 
health matters to ensure the health care needs of urban Indians are 
considered at the local, Area, and national levels, when implementing 
and carrying out the IHCIA.'' \11\ An urban confer requirement across 
HHS would require all agencies and offices within HHS to engage in 
direct communication with UIOs on issues, resources, and programs that 
affect UIOs and their patients. The current lack of an urban confer 
requirement for HHS agencies and offices outside of IHS acts as a 
significant roadblock to UIO efforts to engage with these agencies to 
improve health services for AI/ANs living in urban areas. Many federal 
agencies do not understand that over 70% of AI/ANs reside in urban 
areas and that UIOs are a critical part of the Indian healthcare 
system. Requiring agencies, such as CMS, to confer with UIOs would be 
instrumental in ensuring that obstacles relating to programs and 
benefits that directly affect UIOs are addressed quickly so that UIOs 
are able to access all resources available to provide healthcare to 
their patients.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Id.
    \11\ Indian Health Service, Office of Urban Indian Programs, Urban 
Confer Policy, https://www.ihs.gov/urban/urban-confer-policy/ (last 
visited May 31, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Public health crises, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, amplify the 
long-overdue need for urban confer with HHS to adequately communicate 
the constantly changing healthcare policies with UIOs that directly 
impact their patients. For example, a vital request from HHS regarding 
distribution for the initial COVID-19 vaccine rollout in December 2020 
was not communicated to UIOs and created unnecessary hardships. HHS 
addressed initial communications only to Tribes and did not direct them 
to the UIO component of the I/T/U system. When HHS was asked about 
whether UIOs needed to similarly decide between an IHS or state vaccine 
allocation, it was unclear as to whether they were expected to make 
such a decision. UIOs were essentially an afterthought, even though 
they are a vital part of the government's implementation of the trust 
obligation. Eventually, HHS asked UIOs to decide between receiving 
their vaccine distribution from either their state jurisdiction or IHS 
on the same day as the initial deadline to Tribes (which thankfully HHS 
subsequently extended for several days). Some UIOs were informed of the 
deadline by their Area office but there was no formal national 
communication. Consequently, UIOs were prevented from providing input, 
resulting in many clinics experiencing serious delays in vaccine 
distribution. For example, Native American LifeLines, the Baltimore 
UIO, did not receive vaccines until just five days before the general 
public was eligible. Ultimately, this flawed process could have been 
easily avoided had HHS conferred with UIOs.
    In an October 2021 House Natural Resources Subcommittee for 
Indigenous Peoples of the United States (SCIP) hearing on the Urban 
Indian Health Confer Act (H.R. 5221), IHS Deputy Director, Benjamin 
Smith, confirmed the failure to properly communicate with UIOs around 
COVID-19 vaccine distribution in his remarks. According to Deputy 
Director Smith: ``[i]nitially urban Indian organizations were not 
included in the discussion and request from the Department of Health 
and Human Services about whether urban Indian organizations would 
receive their vaccine allocation from the state or from the Indian 
Health Service. As a result, it was unclear to urban Indian 
organizations on whether they were expected to make a similar decision 
as tribes did. It was ultimately determined that the urban Indian 
organizations could select a state or Indian Health Service for their 
vaccine allocation. In some urban Indian organizations, however, there 
were delays in the initial vaccine rollout.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Indigenous Peoples of 
the United States Holds Hearing on Pending Legislation. 117 Cong. 
(2021). https://acrobat.adobe.com/link/
review?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:ae945cea-41c0-3fa7-8457-739f454dbb02
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 630 requires HHS agencies to confer with UIOs on healthcare 
policies and programs that affect AI/ANs. Meeting regularly with UIOs 
through Urban confers will ensure that AI/AN people residing in urban 
areas are able to voice their needs and priorities to HHS, including 
how HHS can support funding for health and wellness, access to care, 
and coordination between providers, public health systems, and 
community services for American Indians and Alaska Natives in urban 
areas. It ensures that HHS has their finger on the pulse of urban 
Indian issues and can greatly improve the lives of all AI/ANs as part 
of their mission and obligation. This legislation remedies these 
problems by codifying a confer requirement between HHS and UIOs, thus 
ensuring that AI/AN lives are no longer jeopardized by the lack of 
adequate communication pathways between HHS agencies and UIOs.
Strong Indian Country and Congressional Support for Urban Confer

    The support for confer with UIOs is strong among stakeholders in 
Indian Country. For example, in November 2020, the National Congress of 
American Indians (NCAI) passed a resolution to ``Call for the U.S. 
Department of Health and Human Services Secretary to Implement an Urban 
Confer Policy Across the Department and its Divisions.'' \13\ The 
resolution affirmed that ``the federal trust responsibility to provide 
health care to AI/ANs does not apply solely to the IHS because the 
obligation extends to all government agencies, including the U.S. 
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), its agencies and 
divisions.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ The National Congress of American Indians, The National 
Congress of American Indians Resolution #PDX-20-021 (Nov. 8, 2020), 
available at: https://www.ncai.org/attachments/
Resolution_ROtzxPAdbKLfUbrnRVmUoOfklRbZgxXvXJBCqoyBgPomYTflsHu_PDX-20-
021%20 SIGNED.pdf
    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I would like to also thank two leaders in the Senate, Senators Tina 
Smith and Markwayne Mullin, for their bipartisan introduction of the 
identical companion legislation, Urban Indian Health Confer Act (S. 
460). In a March 2023 Senate Committee on Indian Affairs (SCIA) 
hearing, SCIA Vice-Chair Senator Murkowski said about the legislation, 
``We don't have urban Indian health organizations in Alaska but we 
often call Anchorage our largest Native village because it is home to 
the largest Native population in the state. I support this bipartisan 
legislation because it would give urban Indian health care providers a 
voice in the policies and the services offered by the Department of 
Health and Human Services.''
    I would like to emphasize that Members of Congress from both sides 
of the aisle have expressed their direct support for urban Indian 
health and confer policies with UIOs. For example, in a SCIP hearing on 
the 2021 iteration of this bill, H.R. 5221, Representative Darren Soto 
said, ``It's time to modernize and improve health access for our Native 
Americans. This requires us to have greater urban access through the 
Indian Health Service and the U.S. Department of Health and Human 
Services, which is why we applaud Chair Grijalva for this great bill 
[H.R. 5221].'' \15\ H.R. 5221 passed in the house on November 2, 2021, 
by an overwhelming majority of 406 votes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Indigenous Peoples of 
the United States Holds Hearing on Pending Legislation. 117 Cong. 
(2021). https://acrobat.adobe.com/link/
review?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:ae945cea-41c0-3fa7-8457-739f454dbb02
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion

    Urban confer must be established across HHS to further improve 
healthcare delivered to urban Indian patients. The Urban Indian Health 
Confer Act is essential to uphold the trust responsibility of the 
United States and ensures that AI/ANs residing in urban areas have an 
avenue for direct communication with HHS and the agencies and offices 
within HHS charged with overseeing the health of their AI/AN patients.
    We, therefore, urge the House Natural Resources Committee to 
continue to prioritize urban Indian health and ensure the swift passage 
of this bill, thereby enabling UIOs to continue providing high-quality, 
culturally competent care to AI/AN people, regardless of where they 
live.

                                 ______
                                 

    Questions Submitted for the Record to Ms. Francys Crevier, CEO, 
                National Council of Urban Indian Health
             Questions Submitted by Representative Grijalva
    Question 1. Once a Department-wide urban confer policy is passed 
into law, day-to-day, how will this policy help UIOs better address the 
healthcare needs of urban Indian populations?

    Answer. An urban confer requirement will allow UIOs to regularly 
engage with all agencies and operating divisions within the Department 
of Health and Human Services (HHS) that impact the provision of 
healthcare to American Indians and Alaska Natives in urban areas, such 
as the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Health 
Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), and Substance Abuse and 
Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). The federal government 
has a trust responsibility to provide health care services to all 
American Indians and Alaska Natives regardless of where they live. 
Additionally, Congress, in the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, has 
stated that a ``major national goal of the United States . . . to 
encourage the maximum participation of Indians in the planning and 
management of those services.'' \1\ Because HHS, ``through its 
operating divisions, carries out health and human service programs for 
American Indians and Alaska Natives,'' \2\ it is consistent with both 
the trust responsibility and stated national policy to require HHS 
agencies and offices to engage in Urban Confer on matters that affect 
the health and healthcare of American Indians and Alaska Native living 
in urban areas. When the Department of Health and Human Services and 
its operating divisions implement programs and policies that affect the 
health and health care of American Indians and Alaska Natives living in 
urban areas without meaningfully engaging with these populations to 
understand their needs, limitations, priorities, and requirements, then 
the implementing agency has not done its due diligence. This bill will 
ensure that HHS is able to meet the needs of urban Native populations 
and will allow us to serve your constituents better.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ 25 U.S.C. Sec. 1602(3).
    \2\ Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector 
General, Indian Health and Human Services (HHS-OIG).

    Question 2. What is the current process for UIOs to communicate 
with offices and agencies at the Department of Health and Human 
Services? How is this different from UIO communications with the Indian 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Health Service?

    Answer. There is currently no Urban Confer policy between HHS and 
any of its operating divisions and Urban Indian Organizations outside 
of the Indian Health Service (IHS). HHS and its operating divisions 
argue that because only IHS has a statutory duty to conduct Urban 
Confer, they need a similar direction from Congress. UIOs have worked 
for many years to engage in Urban Confer with HHS without a statutory 
requirement. However, despite these efforts, no HHS agency has formally 
engaged in Urban Confer without IHS facilitation. Because of this, UIOs 
have no option other than to pursue legislation, such as the Urban 
Indian Health Confer Act, to enable them to effectively engage with 
these critical healthcare agencies in furtherance of the trust 
responsibility.
    By contrast, IHS has been statutorily required to confer with Urban 
Indian Organizations since 2010 and has developed a robust Urban Confer 
policy to carry out this requirement.\3\ Urban Confer in the context of 
IHS has proven to be an invaluable venue for UIOs to share feedback, 
recommendations, and testimony on the unique health needs of American 
Indians and Alaska Natives living in urban areas. The confer 
requirement provides UIOs with a formal mechanism to engage with IHS on 
matters that relate to urban Indian health and to ensure that the needs 
of their specific patient populations are appropriately accounted for. 
It also requires IHS to initiate confer with UIOs on any IHS programs 
and policies that affect urban Indian health and healthcare.\4\ Since 
the IHS requirement to confer with UIOs has become law, it has not 
affected IHS's ability to consult with Tribal governments, nor has it 
negatively affected the nature of the government-to-government 
relationship between Tribes and IHS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Pub. L. 111-148, title X, Sec. 10221(a).
    \4\ Indian Health Service, Indian Health Manual, Chapter 29: Urban 
Confer, https://www.ihs.gov/ihm/pc/part-5/p5c26/#5-26.1A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    However, IHS is not the only branch of HHS that supports the 
provision of healthcare to American Indians and Alaska Natives in urban 
areas. For example, many UIOs are also Federally Qualified Health 
Centers (FQHC) or FQHC look-a-likes. The FQHC program, including 
certification and funding, is run by HRSA, but UIOs have no mechanism 
to communicate directly with HRSA regarding the ways in which the FQHC 
program could be improved to better serve American Indians and Alaska 
Natives in urban areas. Similarly, a significant number of American 
Indians and Alaska Natives in urban areas are Medicaid 
beneficiaries.\5\ As a result, UIOs serve many Medicaid beneficiaries 
but are unable to directly engage with CMS regarding issues that may 
arise for both American Indian and Alaska Native beneficiaries and UIO 
providers in the Medicaid program. A department-wide Urban Confer 
policy will give UIOs a necessary mechanism to help HHS to improve all 
of the services it provides to American Indians and Alaska Natives in 
fulfillment of the trust responsibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ In 2019, Medicaid covered 1.3 million urban AI/ANs, including 
30% of urban AI/AN adults under age 65. NCUIH analysis of American 
Community Survey (ACS) data for AI/AN alone or in combination. SDA-2019 
ACS sample. (n.d.). IPUMS ONLINE DATA ANALYSIS SYSTEM. Retrieved 
November 19, 2022, from https://sda.usa.ipums.org/sdaweb/analysis/
?dataset=us2019a.

    Question 3. How do you anticipate H.R. 630 affecting your 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
relationship with HHS and how do you hope to see it improve?

    Answer. HHS ``through its operating divisions, carries out health 
and human service programs for American Indians and Alaska Natives.'' 
\6\ An HHS Urban Confer requirement will help coordinate care between 
UIOs and HHS, including the relevant agencies and Departments within 
HHS that have a trust responsibility to provide care to American 
Indians and Alaska Natives no matter where they live. It will also help 
HHS fulfill the United States' national policy, set forth by Congress, 
``to ensure maximum Indian participation in the direction of health 
care services so as to render the persons administering such services 
and the services themselves more responsive to the needs and desires of 
Indian communities.'' \7\ Meeting regularly with UIOs through Urban 
Confers will help HHS make sure that American Indians and Alaska 
Natives living in urban areas can voice their needs and priorities to 
HHS, including how HHS can support health and wellness, access to care, 
and coordination between providers, public health systems, and 
community services for American Indians and Alaska Natives in urban 
areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector 
General, Indian Health and Human Services, (HHS-OIG).
    \7\ 25 U.S.C. Sec. 1602(3).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 ______
                                 

    Ms. Hageman. Thank you, Ms. Crevier. I want you to know 
that I did have a very good conversation with Ms. Egorin 
yesterday, and I emphasized to her that it was extremely 
important that we start fixing the situation that we are in, 
and that it is absolutely unacceptable in terms of the quality 
of health care that we are providing to our tribal members.
    We have also had an opportunity to visit with the head of 
the Indian Health Services, and we have sent that message very 
loud and clear.
    I want to thank all of the witnesses for your testimony. It 
is very moving, very important to have all of you here today.
    I am going to start recognizing the Members for their 
questions, and I am going to start with me.
    I think one of the things that is interesting about the 
bills that are before us is that there is a common theme, 
although they are very disparate in terms of the specific 
issues that they are addressing. And the common theme for me as 
I have listened to the testimony and read through the 
information in preparation for today is that they are about 
fixing past mistakes. They are about righting past wrongs. 
There are about allowing for healing, and they are about 
honoring those who have suffered.
    But it is also recognizing the United States' 
responsibilities, obligations, and, in some cases, culpability.
    These bills also seem to expose the failure of a government 
that can take literally decades to correct these types of 
things. And I am going to say it again: We must do better for 
our tribal members, for our citizens, and for our country. And 
I know that this Committee and the Committee members are 
committed to that. The Members in the House of Representatives 
that I have talked to are committed to fixing these things and 
addressing these things, and not just with these six bills, but 
with other issues that need to be addressed, as well.
    I am going to begin my questioning with Victoria Kitcheyan.
    In your testimony, you note that the legislation at issue 
enjoys bipartisan co-sponsors and support for the legislation 
from the Department of the Interior. Are you aware of anyone or 
any particular agency that may oppose this legislation?
    Ms. Kitcheyan. Thank you for the question.
    No, the Winnebago Tribe took great effort to ensure that 
all stakeholders from the local county, from the local 
representatives, from the fishers and the hunters, we wanted to 
ensure that we covered all those that had an interest or care 
for that land, and we have met no opposition. And, in fact, we 
are very thankful for the Army Corps working with the Iowa DNR 
to anticipate this change, and that they have language in their 
licensing that this land would be returned.
    Ms. Hageman. Thank you, and that was going to be my next 
question, what is the position the Corps of Engineers has 
taken. But I believe that you just answered that, that they are 
in support of this legislation, as well. Wonderful.
    In your testimony, you stated that the Winnebago Tribe 
would not make many changes to the current conservation 
measures in place for these lands, and that the Winnebago 
Wildlife and Parks Department would have jurisdiction similar 
to what is exercised on other Winnebago lands. Could you please 
further expand on what these lands would be used for, and the 
recreational and conservation activities that your Tribe will 
be focusing on?
    Ms. Kitcheyan. Certainly. The Tribe has a robust wildlife 
and parks department that oversees 10,000 acres, and they 
create zones. So, they will create a zone for the Iowa land, 
and will administer it in the same way that we do on the 
Nebraska side. And they will continue to have hunting, fishing, 
and recreation there. I guess, in our opinion, we are going to 
do a better job than the Iowa DNR did in taking care of this 
land. And I just want to assure you that the Indigenous 
knowledge and the caretaking of the land is something that is 
within us and a part of us.
    Ms. Hageman. Well, I have every expectation that that is 
true. And I bet that it is beautiful. I bet those lands are 
very beautiful. So, this is a good opportunity, again, to fix a 
past wrong. And I am glad that you are here today.
    Mr. Langley, I would like to turn to you. Would you please 
further elaborate on your written testimony about the possible 
title issues that were mentioned?
    In other words, how many other surveys and title errors 
have been found by tribal staff, and have any of those been 
resolved?
    Mr. Langley. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am not aware of any 
that have been found, but it is very likely that there will be. 
Most of the lands are timber, which includes all the resulting 
valleys and canyons, all of that make it likely that there will 
be another error. Our original reservation was 69,000 acres, so 
it is very likely that there are others that we just aren't 
aware of.
    Ms. Hageman. OK. And is Grand Ronde aware of any specific 
land claims that will be sought at this time if the legislation 
is enacted?
    Mr. Langley. No, we are not.
    Ms. Hageman. OK. Is the state of Oregon supportive of this 
legislation, and do you have either written or stated support 
from the state in that regard?
    Mr. Langley. Thank you, and yes, it is. It is one of those 
things where both Democrats and Republicans agree on this. We 
are very proud of that. And the simplicity of this issue, I 
think, speaks to it.
    Ms. Hageman. OK. Well, I grew up on a ranch, and I 
understand what all of you say when you talk about the 
importance of the land in terms of not only your past, but your 
future and your identity. So, again, I appreciate the 
Representatives and the various Congress Members who are 
willing to take up these issues and address them for you.
    With that, I am going to ask another question, and this to 
Mr. Lane.
    You mentioned in your testimony that Oregon is supportive 
of the legislation, and that both your Tribe and the state have 
taken first steps to renegotiate the consent decree. Can you 
further explain how these discussions or negotiations are 
taking place, and what you think the path forward is?
    Mr. Lane. Thank you for this question. We started 2 years 
ago negotiating with the Oregon Department of Fish and 
Wildlife, and it has been an ongoing conversation, awkward at 
first, but slowly making progress. And we have reached common 
ground, and even to the point where ODF&W, in our agreement, we 
pledged to each other to help work together to enhance the 
wildlife situation in Oregon.
    We are faced with so many different things, from climate 
change to low runs in fish and salmon and steelhead, and some 
of them are even international that will have to be handled by 
this body because of the acidification of the Pacific. But 
anyway, we have an agreement now in principle, and it will be 
on the ODF&W docket for June 16 for approval between the Tribe 
and the state.
    Ms. Hageman. Wonderful. Thank you, that is good to hear.
    The Chair will now recognize the Ranking Member for 5 
minutes for questions.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you 
for the testimony.
    I find that so often in this Subcommittee, in this room, we 
hear testimony that is so powerful. And it is sadness, in the 
grief that has been suffered for generations with regards to 
those injustices.
    And it was powerful to hear your testimony, Chairwoman, 
about the manner in which reading the treaties, and the fact 
that they were broken so often brings its own pain to that of 
others who describe the manner in which the lands that you 
used, you utilized, and then they were shrunken and shrunken 
and shrunken to the point where you no longer would even 
recognize them. There were 300 salmon available for an entire 
tribe visualizes in many ways kind of the tears and the pain of 
the injustices that I think we all acknowledge that have 
occurred, and the slowness of our response, because that 
response is a congressional response that is required. Because 
without it, best practices don't quite work.
    And I am also very pleased that, in the recent bipartisan 
budget default agreements that were made, that we did save $1.3 
billion that needed to go to the Indian Health Service because 
it is resources that are needed to assist with the improvement 
of the Act.
    And I will start with you, Ms. Crevier. Can you describe 
the challenges that the Urban Indian Organizations face 
communicating with the rest of HHS? You did a beautiful job of 
describing what happened during the COVID rollout, and how the 
life expectancies have gone down, and you are serving 70 
percent of the population. Can you add some additional 
information to that testimony?
    Ms. Crevier. Sure. UIOs were essentially created by 
Congress to ensure that the trust obligation was met in urban 
settings. And you can see by the terrible statistics we have 
that that is not working well.
    But what happens in practice, well, what happens with IHS, 
which is really well done, is when there is a policy that will 
impact us, they will initiate a confer with us, and let us 
know, hey, this is how this policy might impact you. How can we 
make sure that the policy is done in a good way that would 
protect our people.
    And, unfortunately, that doesn't happen at HHS or any of 
those agencies. And we have heard, from SAMHSA, for instance, 
they would like a confer policy. They would like to talk to us 
more to understand, hey, how do we make sure that our policies 
are fully in line with the reality of where we are, but that 
currently isn't happening.
    So, when we do submit comments, I have heard in the past 
that folks can just put them to the side, they don't need to 
read them. Unfortunately, that is where this all continues to 
not work, they don't do anything.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you. And I think the other theme 
is the manner in which the tribes have really coordinated. It 
is a lot of collaboration. It is communication, whether it is 
with the Lakotas around the site that will be taken into 
restricted fee status or with the states.
    Vice Chairman Lane, your testimony highlighted the fishing 
wars. We don't have fish in New Mexico that can be utilized for 
that. But where you are at, that is really a big deal. Can you 
describe the work with the state and the Oregon Department of 
Fish about how that evolved, and why that is kind of part of 
the linchpin to what the legislation is going to do today, if 
we pass it out and move it through the House?
    Mr. Lane. The fish runs on the coast have been declining 
over the years, and for a lot of different reasons. And our 
Tribe has unilaterally even inserted logs. We used to take them 
out all the time. It was the policy when timber was logged to 
take them out. But scientists finally realized that the smolt 
need them to keep cool and to get upstream and to survive.
    So, we have enacted small measures to help with those 
things. There are some larger ones that have to happen with the 
state. And in developing this relationship, we really didn't 
have much of a relationship at all with the state. Any time we 
tried to improve the hunting and fishing agreement, the consent 
decree that we are talking about doing away with, we were met 
with solid noes. We couldn't manage in any way. That has all 
changed now, and under this new agreement we hope to be doing 
things that can help the environment, help all of the animals 
that can't speak for themselves.
    We humans use these animals, and we need to respect them 
more and to take up for them. But our hope is, in development 
of more fisheries programs and natural resource programs, that 
we can better improve it for the state and for the Tribe.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you so very much for also 
pointing out that this collaboration and communication needs to 
be with all living things. I appreciate that.
    I yield back.
    Ms. Hageman. The Chair now recognizes Mr. LaMalfa for 5 
minutes of questions.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I would like to 
direct this to Vice Chairman Lane of the Siletz.
    First of all, is the BIA being supportive in your effort to 
renegotiate this consent with the agreements on hunting, 
fishing, trapping, et cetera? Are you getting good help from 
the BIA?
    Mr. Lane. Yes, they testified so this morning already.
    Mr. LaMalfa. OK, good, thank you. All right. Let's shift 
over to Chairwoman Kitcheyan. Did I say that correctly?
    I am sorry. Your legislation you are working on is H.R. 
1240, and you have been working at this for a while, right? It 
has been in several Congresses, trying to get this moving. What 
is the background that it has taken this long, or multiple 
bills to do it? What do you see needs to be helped to get a 
green light on this?
    Ms. Kitcheyan. Well, thank you for being aware of our 
former attempts.
    The first bill was introduced by Congressman Steve King, 
and that didn't advance. So, then we worked with Congressman 
Fortenberry. And, unfortunately, that one didn't advance 
either. And it has been at no fault of the Tribe or any 
opposition that this bill has advanced, it has just been some 
of the folks that just weren't available to assist us any 
further.
    So, we are very thankful for Randy Feenstra in stepping up 
and really building relationships with the Tribe, and 
especially Louis Larose in coming to this point.
    Mr. LaMalfa. OK. Have you had to change the bill in any way 
from the previous versions, or is it pretty much the same?
    Ms. Kitcheyan. No, it is substantively the same.
    Mr. LaMalfa. OK. All right. Thank you.
    President Lehi, your assertion that should your legislation 
become law, that the first priority would be for services for 
members on housing and all the amenities that go with that, 
which is good, basic running water, electricity, we want that 
to happen for you, does the Tribe have other long-term plans on 
further economic developments on these lands that will help the 
lands, as well as help the Tribe? What are you looking at, 
longer term, sir?
    Mr. Lehi. Thank you for the question. We haven't really 
looked that far yet, because the treaty has not been ratified. 
But the main source of it was for our tribal members to 
actually get housing and all the other essentials to power 
everything.
    But we have not looked that far yet. I can't really speak 
for our tribal council, but we will sit down as soon, if this 
is ratified, we will sit down and look at economic development.
    Mr. LaMalfa. OK. Well, first things first. Stable housing 
and the amenities that go with that are extremely important. I 
certainly understand that.
    Do you have any issues or any concerns with neighboring 
tribes, the Navajo, the Hopi, in issues with shared lands, 
sacred sites? Is that all going pretty smoothly?
    Mr. Lehi. With Navajo Nation we did receive a support 
letter, so there is support, and I have met with Hopi Nation 
tribal leadership, and they are in support of it, as well.
    Mr. LaMalfa. And you feel it is going smoothly, then?
    Mr. Lehi. Yes.
    Mr. LaMalfa. OK, that is good, really good.
    I think with that, Madam Chair, I have no further 
questions. Thank you.
    Ms. Hageman. Thank you, Mr. LaMalfa. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Grijalva for 5 minutes of questions.
    Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I just want to 
associate with some of your comments and the Ranking Member's 
comments, where you said that this Subcommittee does have a 
history and a tradition, and we are not just talking about 
bipartisanship, to look at these issues because they carry a 
great deal of responsibility, and the point of the trust 
responsibility with Indian Country that I think we all respect.
    On this Subcommittee, it has been my experience on being in 
Resources all this time that we usually don't get together to 
point fingers at each other. We save that for other 
Subcommittees and Full Committee.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Grijalva. And we will enjoy those moments, but this is 
a different kind of place. So, I appreciate those comments that 
you made.
    The legislation that I am proposing, and let me ask Ms. 
Crevier, did I say it right?
    We heard some of the comments from the Assistant Secretary 
at HHS talking about silos, and how they are trying to 
integrate that, best practices, et cetera. And I think the 
Chair mentioned sometimes this is about correcting history and 
avoiding future problems. And the fact that HHS doesn't have a 
department-wide, not formalized government-to-government 
consultation, but a conferring with Indian health 
organizations, UIOs, those urban centers of which 70 percent of 
the population of Indigenous people live, work, and survive in 
those urban centers, I include the Indian Center in Tucson, et 
cetera.
    Can you speak to the importance of Urban Indian 
Organizations and how they often experience parity issues with 
the Indian Health System and HHS as a whole?
    Ms. Crevier. Yes, I can. Thank you for that.
    I look at the UIOs as trust health care deliverers. That is 
what they are. And one of the ways of lack of parity is that we 
are not allowed into the rooms, we are not invited to the 
meetings, we don't know when they are. So, these basic things 
of how do we improve the health care of all Native people is 
missing because we are not even allowed in those rooms. So, how 
can HHS actually fulfill its trust obligation of health care 
when it can't even include us in that conversation?
    And it is very important. These UIOs are in relocation 
areas, where the government moved us, they moved us off of 
reservation into urban areas with the intent to kill the 
Indian, save the man. Then Congress said, OK, that is a bad 
idea, let's not do that. So, now there are health care 
facilities there, and that is part of correcting the past bad 
behavior.
    So, until we are included in those rooms, it is going to be 
very hard for HHS to meet its obligation and make us healthier 
people.
    Mr. Grijalva. Well, at another hearing, a Zuni, from the 
Zuni pueblos, the Vice Chair, I think, of the community, said 
something that I have heard before, but he said, ``Of course, 
we want to be at the table because right now we are just the 
menu.'' And I thought that was pretty specific.
    So, I asked the Secretary; let me ask you the same thing. 
If HHS is not conferring with UIOs across the Department, how 
can we be sure that the urban Indians are accounted for when we 
do health care policies, when we deal with disparity, when we 
deal with resource allocation, and other initiatives? How are 
we sure? You mentioned we are not there, so we don't know.
    And the issue of being considered a grantee, as opposed to 
a trust responsibility recipient, those differences.
    Ms. Crevier. I mean, that difference in itself is huge 
enough, right?
    I mean, look at our all of our health disparities. They are 
terrible. As the NIHB CEO would say, we are at the race to the 
bottom and we are winning.
    We need true, true investment into Indian Country. And 
without this confer policy, it is not going to happen. We are 
going to continue to see these bad statistics.
    Mr. Grijalva. Right. And Madam Chair, let me thank the 
leadership from the various Nations that are here today, and 
congratulate you on the legislation and the sponsors of that 
legislation. Thank you for being here. I yield back.
    Ms. Hageman. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mrs. 
Gonzalez-Colon for 5 minutes of questions.
    Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Madam Chair, and good 
afternoon to everybody here.
    I want to be brief, but in reading some of the statements 
some of you made, both Chairman LeBeau and Mr. Star Comes Out, 
why did your Tribes choose to pursue restricted fee status for 
these 40 acres, rather than a trust status? I just don't know, 
so I would love you to tell me why choose one before the other 
one.
    Mr. Star Comes Out. To secure the land for our own, 
basically.
    Mr. LeBeau. Thank you. Yes, we would like to use the 
restricted fee status to give the Tribes more control over the 
lands in question, the 40 acres.
    And the 40 acres is the area back on December 29, 1890 
where over 300 Lakota people were massacred by the United 
States military. And that is the killing field where that had 
all occurred. And since that time, the Tribes, we don't want to 
see the United States' name on the title of the land that our 
people died on because of them. So, that is one of the reasons, 
it is because the Tribes, we want our name on the land.
    Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. While memorializing the Wounded Knee 
massacre is unique to the descendants of the Great Sioux 
Nation, do you think that the process both of your Tribes have 
used to come to an agreement on how to jointly pursue this 
memorial could be used in other contexts and with other tribes?
    Mr. Star Comes Out. For decades we have been fighting for 
land, and it is about time we got an opportunity and the Tribes 
came together for the betterment of the whole entire Oceti 
Sakowin, and we were able to secure it. And that is the main 
goal is we want to secure this land so it is ours.
    Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. I am with you on that. My question is, 
is the process you used, to literally come to an agreement, 
both of your Tribes, should it be used by other tribes and in 
other contexts? Do you recommend that process for other tribes?
    Mr. Star Comes Out. Yes, I do. We coordinated with not only 
the Tribes' leadership, but also the descendants of that sacred 
site who were buried there. So, we took the approach very 
carefully. And we were able to get that done.
    Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you.
    President Lehi, can you further elaborate on specific 
challenges your Tribe faces as a result of not having your own 
reservation? And how will this bill alleviate those challenges?
    Mr. Lehi. A lot of challenges that we come across, 
especially, like, if we were to request some help from ADOT. 
Under the treaty reservation that we are requesting for, there 
is a big wash that we need to have a bridge built. But we go to 
ADOT, and they have funding there for us that is almost 
approved, but it always came back to where is your treaty land. 
And that is where multiple doors get shut because we have no 
treaty land. And that is the biggest challenge we have.
    Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you.
    I don't have any further questions, Madam Chair. I yield 
back.
    Ms. Hageman. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Hoyle 
for 5 minutes of questions.
    Ms. Hoyle. Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, I just 
want to say this is my first bill that I am bringing up. And I 
couldn't be more proud to hopefully have this become the first 
law that I have sponsored, because this is a long time coming.
    Vice Chairman Lane, I want to ask you, if this bill were 
enacted and you were free to hunt and fish on your own 
homelands, how would this be important to you personally? What 
would that mean to you personally, and to your tribal members?
    Mr. Lane. I guess the thing that I would like to clarify 
would be to hunt and fish legally in my own homeland.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Lane. Because that has gone on for many years. We have 
been treated like criminals because of that.
    But there are a couple of sacred sites to me that are 
sacred to me. One is in our language, it is [speaking Native 
language] which means Yucca Creek Falls. It is a falls where 
you can spear and dip net fish. And the other is [speaking 
Native language], it means Rock Creek. And these places, we 
believe God made them for us to feed the people. And we 
describe it as, really, He made the world for us. It is 
[speaking Native language], and it literally means ``made for 
you.''
    So, for me, personally, that would be to be able to legally 
go in there and conduct those ancient activities that have been 
handed down to us generation after generation, we are the 
latest link in that chain of humanity that has depended on 
those resources to feed our people. It is a great thing, it 
will be a great moment for our people.
    Ms. Hoyle. Thank you. And I really, genuinely hope we can 
move this through. We will have a great celebration when that 
happens.
    And Secretary Langley, first of all, I want to say that, 
certainly, the Oregon delegation and, hopefully, working with 
the Washington delegation, that we can work with all the 
parties involved to address whatever concerns they are so that 
we can bring your bill forward, as well.
    I also want to extend my condolences for you and your Tribe 
for the loss of Kathryn Harrison, a great woman and tribal 
leader and Oregonian. May her memory be a blessing. And I know 
that removing the consent decree was really important to her, 
so I just want to say that we will work really hard to make 
that happen.
    Thank you. I yield my time.
    Ms. Hageman. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Crane 
for 5 minutes of questions.
    Mr. Crane. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I appreciate it.
    President Lehi, can you please tell the Committee what the 
importance of tribal self-governance is to you?
    Mr. Lehi. Tribal self-governance. We are not that big. We 
are only asking for 5,400 acres, and we are surrounded by 
Navajo Nation. And we are a small government, I mean, we do 
have our own council, we do have our leadership, and we go 
through everything just as any other government. I mean, we are 
a small tribe, but we need this treaty land just to make us 
stronger in our own self-governance.
    Mr. Crane. Thank you. If Congress were to pass this, 
President Lehi, this legislation, and you were able to finally 
get your own land, can you explain what this would mean to your 
people?
    Mr. Lehi. This would mean a lot to our people because, even 
during our recognition, our elders who worked on this 
recognition in 1989 to have this to move forward, at the time 
our tribal leaders could not speak English, they spoke our 
Native tongues, San Juan Southern Paiute, and they worked very 
hard to get here. And now a lot of the people who worked on it 
at the time, our elders, they passed on.
    And as I mentioned here in the testimony, Mabel Lehi, she 
is one of the last elders around. And I spoke with her before I 
came out here, and she is very proud that it has gone this far, 
and she wants to see this treaty be ratified before she enters 
the next world.
    But this is very great for us, because I grew up on the 
land, I live there to this day, and we irrigate there every 
year, and it is a part of us. Ask any Native American about the 
land where they come from. They are very tied to it. It is very 
sacred, and it is just peaceful there.
    Mr. Crane. Thank you. President Lehi, you said that the 
Hopi support this legislation?
    Mr. Lehi. Yes, I met with Hopi leadership in May, and they 
are in support of us, there is no opposition from them. And 
with Navajo Nation, we received their support letter, and that 
is how it got this far.
    Mr. Crane. President Lehi, the last time I was on your land 
you told me that we could go horseback riding up on the 
plateau. Is that correct?
    Mr. Lehi. Yes, I did.
    Mr. Crane. President Lehi, you are not going to leave me up 
on that plateau, are you?
    Mr. Lehi. No, the horse will go back home.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Crane. OK, good to know. President Lehi, I am honored, 
like my colleague, Ms. Hoyle, over here. This is the first bill 
that I have ever introduced, and it is an honor. I think it is 
a very, very important thing to be done. I hope we can help 
your people push this over the finish line, not only for your 
people, but I would love it if your grandmother got to see this 
in her lifetime.
    So, thank you, brother, for coming out here. And we are 
going to continue to work on this, OK?
    Mr. Lehi. Yes, thank you. Thank you for giving us this 
opportunity for me and my people to be up here, and we greatly 
appreciate it.
    Mr. Crane. I yield back my time.
    Ms. Hageman. Thank you.
    I want to thank the witnesses for your valuable testimony 
today, the Members for your questions, and for the non-Members 
of this Committee for coming and participating, and making this 
such a success today to get this information out.
    The members of the Committee may have some additional 
questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to 
those in writing. Under Committee Rule 3, members of the 
Committee must submit such questions to the Committee Clerk by 
5 p.m. on Monday, June 12, 2023. The hearing record will be 
held open for 10 business days for your responses.
    If there is no further business, and without objection, the 
Committee stands adjourned.

    [Whereupon, at 12:27 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

            [ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

Submission for the Record by Rep. Westerman

                      National Indian Health Board

                             Washington, DC

                                                  June 12, 2023    

Hon. Bruce Westerman, Chairman
Hon. Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member
House Natural Resources Committee
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Expressing Concerns with H.R. 630, the Urban Indian Confer Act

    Dear Chair Westerman and Ranking Member Grijalva:

    On behalf of the National Indian Health Board (NIHB) and the 574 
sovereign federally recognized American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal 
nations we serve, we write to express concerns with H.R. 630, the Urban 
Indian Confer Act. This bill would codify obligations of the United 
States to Urban Indian Organizations (UIOs) that exceed consultation 
requirements with Tribal nations on the same or similar policy. While 
``confer'' is a definition that is intended to be distinct from Tribal 
consultation, the law must always be read in context of the outcome it 
seeks to achieve and in relation to the policy it intends to affect. By 
codifying a policy on UIO confer, the law would implicitly and 
explicitly draw parameters around the scope of Tribal consultation, and 
by extension, how the United States interprets Tribal sovereignty and 
its nation-to-nation relationship.
    Access to healthcare is a treaty and trust right extended to Tribal 
nations' citizens by virtue of their political status as citizens of 
Tribal Nations. Urban Indian Organizations are recognized in statute 
and receive funds for the benefit of Tribal citizens' healthcare, but 
their programmatic status is not one politically derived from 
recognition of their sovereignty. In simple terms, UIOs exist by 
extension of Tribal nations' political status with the United States. 
If Congress were to enact this bill, it would be granting relational 
rights to a programmatic entity that exceed those granted to Tribal 
nations. Furthermore, Tribal nations represent and advocate for and 
support their citizens regardless of where they reside.
    NIHB is particularly concerned about policies with good intentions 
that may be misconstrued at a later date to erode Tribal sovereignty. 
Confer and Consultation are two different words, but they are inserted 
into a policy context where their practical application is similar, 
nearly identical, or difficult to distinguish. When programmatic 
entities are treated in parity with Tribal nations or in a way that is 
difficult to distinguish from U.S./Tribal relations, courts may 
interpret federal Indian law, the purpose or intent of a program, or 
the nation-to-nation relationship differently and in a way that erodes 
the unique sovereign status of Tribal nations.
    Currently, the applicable definition of ``confer'' is to engage in 
an open and free exchange of information and opinions. There is already 
a federal policy mechanism for interested parties to engage in an open 
and free exchange of information and opinions--the Administrative 
Procedures Act. If H.R. 630 seeks to elevate the relationship of UIOs 
with the United States to equal or above that of Tribal nations, then 
NIHB must oppose on behalf of the rights and obligations of the 574 
federally recognized Tribes it serves. If H.R. 630 seeks to codify the 
open and free exchange of information and opinions, then it is 
redundant of the Administrative Procedures Act and creates bureaucratic 
red tape that is not needed. Further, if this bill were enacted, it 
would come with an unfunded resource burden that would most likely come 
out of federal resources otherwise appropriated for Tribal 
consultation.
    Additionally, NIHB is concerned by language that has been shared 
with this Committee through recent congressional testimony. The 
National Council on Urban Indian Health stated, in the June 7, 2023 
Subcommittee on Indian and Insular Affairs hearing which stated: ``UIOs 
work to provide high-quality, culturally competent care to the over 70% 
of American Indians and Alaska Natives (AI/ANs) living in urban 
settings.'' This number is misleading, as according to the IHS, in FY 
2021, UIOs served approximately 70,216 AI/ANs,\1\ which is far below 
70% of all AI/ANs. UIOs perform essential and valuable work to AI/ANs 
and other members of the community, but again, should not be granted in 
statute, rights that are above and beyond those shared with Tribal 
nations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees for FY 
2024, Department of Health and Human Services, Indian Health Service. 
CJ-173.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The National Indian Health Board supports the rights of all Tribal 
citizens to access and receive high quality, culturally informed 
healthcare in a time, manner, and place that is reasonable to them. 
Further, NIHB recognizes that UIOs serve an integral part of care for 
AI/ANs throughout the nation. Nonetheless, NIHB has concerns with H.R. 
630 for its explicit, implicit, and latent effects on Tribal 
sovereignty and the nation-to-nation relationship between Tribal 
nations and the United States. NIHB does not support putting into 
statute any kind of requirements for Tribal consultation or confer 
except with Tribal governments.
    In the future, we hope to more fully discuss this critical issue 
with the Urban Indian Organization community, and with Members of the 
Committee and your staff. Should you have any questions about this 
letter, please contact NIHB's Chief Executive Officer, Stacy A. Bohlen, 
at [email protected].

            Yours in Health,

                                             William Smith,
                                   Valdez Native Tribe Chairman    
                                   and Alaska Area Representative  
                                       National Indian Health Board
                            
                            [all]