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


                           ADVANCING TRIBAL SELF-
                                 DETERMINATION:
                          EXAMINING BUREAU OF INDIAN 
                            AFFAIRS' 638 CONTRACTING

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

                             OVERSIGHT HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

               SUBCOMMITTEE ON INDIAN AND INSULAR AFFAIRS

                                 OF THE

                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                        Wednesday, March 6, 2024

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-100

                               __________

       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                    
55-061 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2024                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------          

                     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			Jim Costa, CA
Tom McClintock, CA			Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 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
Mike Collins, GA
Anna Paulina Luna, FL
John Duarte, CA
Harriet M. Hageman, WY                               

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

               SUBCOMMITTEE ON INDIAN AND INSULAR AFFAIRS

                     HARRIET M. HAGEMAN, WY, Chair

                JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON, PR, Vice Chair

               TERESA LEGER FERNANDEZ, NM, Ranking Member

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

                               ---------
                               
                                CONTENTS

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing held on Wednesday, March 6, 2024.........................     1

Statement of Members:

    Hageman, Hon. Harriet M., a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of Wyoming.......................................     1

    Leger Fernandez, Hon. Teresa, a Representative in Congress 
      from the State of New Mexico...............................     3

Statement of Witnesses:

    Newland, Hon. Bryan, Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, 
      U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC............     5
        Prepared statement of....................................     7
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    11

    Dotson, Hon. Deborah, President, Delaware Nation, Anadarko, 
      Oklahoma...................................................    11
        Prepared statement of....................................    13
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    16

    Harvier, Hon. Martin, President, Salt River Pima Maricopa 
      Indian Community, Scottsdale, Arizona......................    17
        Prepared statement of....................................    18
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    22
    Andrews-Maltais, Hon. Cheryl, Chairwoman, Wampanoag Tribe of 
      Gay Head Aquinnah, Aquinnah, Massachusetts.................    25
        Prepared statement of....................................    27
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    32

    Spaan, Jay, Executive Director, Self-Governance Communication 
      & Education Tribal Consortium, Tulsa, Oklahoma.............    35
        Prepared statement of....................................    37
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    41



 
  OVERSIGHT HEARING ON ADVANCING TRIBAL SELF-DETERMINATION: EXAMINING.
               BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS' 638 CONTRACTING

                              ----------                              


                        Wednesday, March 6, 2024

                     U.S. House of Representatives

               Subcommittee on Indian and Insular Affairs

                     Committee on Natural Resources

                             Washington, DC

                              ----------                              

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:25 p.m., in 
Room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Harriet M. 
Hageman [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Hageman, Radewagen; and Leger 
Fernandez.
    Also present: Representative Schweikert.

    Ms. Hageman. The Subcommittee on Indian and Insular Affairs 
will come to order.
    I want to apologize that I am late. I was testifying just 
down the hall on another bill that we have introduced, so thank 
you for your patience.
    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 Advancing Tribal Self-
Determination, Examining Bureau of Indian Affairs' 638 
Contracting.
    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 also ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from 
Arizona, Mr. Schweikert, 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. Since the 1970s, the United States has pursued 
a policy of self-determination for tribes, allowing tribal 
governments to self-direct services provided to their people.
    Tribes know how best to serve their members and it is 
important that Congress continues to bring tribal voices to the 
table.
    President Nixon laid out the beginning of the Self-
Determination Policy, particularly stating, ``We must make it 
clear that Indians can become independent of Federal control 
without being cut off from Federal concern and Federal 
support.'' I agree with that sentiment.
    In response, Congress enacted the Self-Determination and 
Education Assistance Act or ISDEAA in 1995. Public Law in 93-
638, often referred to by the shorthand of just 638, 
established the statutory basis for Self-Determination 
Contracts and later Self-Governance Compacts.
    As a result, tribes can seek contracts or compacts for 
various programs, functions, services, and activities, 
otherwise run by the Federal Government.
    Tribes have used the 638 mechanisms to take over a variety 
of programs at the BIA, such as those related to public safety, 
functions of the Indian Health Services, and have even 
negotiated agreements with other agencies, housed within the 
Department of the Interior, like the Bureau of Land Management 
and Bureau of Reclamation.
    These Self-Determination Contracts and Self-Governance 
Compacts reaffirm a tribe's sovereignty. By running a program, 
tribes increase their institutional knowledge and find more 
flexibility in molding a program to fit the needs of their 
tribal members and their communities.
    Again, it is the tribes that know the needs of their 
members, not the Federal Government.
    In Fiscal Year 2022, an estimated 275 tribes participated 
in Self-Determination Contracts, and 292 tribes participated in 
Self-Governance Compacts.
    Tribes have continued to advocate for the expansion of 638 
contracts and compacts to other Federal departments and 
agencies. This is a popular solution to the persistent concern 
of out-of-touch bureaucrats running a program.
    Self-Determination Contracts and Self-Governance Compacts 
have seen changes over the years, as Congress has worked to 
improve these programs. The most recent change occurred in 
2020, with the Progress Act being signed into law.
    I have heard from tribes across the country that issues 
with 638 programming remains, such as the response rate to 638 
proposals by BIA, the continued inherent Federal functions 
question, the audit process, and through funding.
    I look forward to talking with our witnesses, as each has a 
unique perspective on the 638 Programs and where improvements 
can be made, and we can learn from you.
    Each tribe is uniquely situated, within their communities, 
their culture, and their history. Tribal governments already 
seek to make the best decisions for their members, for their 
social, cultural, and economic security.
    The Subcommittee's role is to continue to give tribal 
leaders a platform for advocating for changes that will best 
support the tribes and their members.
    Thank you to our witnesses for being with us today. I look 
forward to our discussion and I look forward to continuing this 
conversation around what other programs and services tribes 
would like to see in a 638 Contract or Compact capability in 
the near future.
    The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Minority Member for 
her statement.

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

    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank 
you to each of you for coming today to share your stories, 
because it is only through your testimony and sharing your 
stories of both the successes you have had and the frustrations 
that we will know how best to think about legislation.
    So, I am very grateful for you being here today. Each of 
you knows too well how important compacting a 638 is, right? 
93-638, is it compacting? Is it contracting? What can we do?
    We also know, that since passage in 1975, with President, 
you know we have to give it to him, he did wonderful things, 
President Nixon, we got Blue Lake for Taos Pueblo, we got Self-
Determination, we got the EPA, but now we need to build on it 
and get better at what we know works, because tribes have been 
utilizing the program and you are going to tell us about the 
successes today.
    Three thousand contracts and compacts currently have been 
authorized by the 638 at the Department of the Interior, and we 
know, and I have worked on many compacts and contracts with the 
Indian Health Service, which are also very important.
    And we need to recognize that the ISDEAA, together with 
legislation like the Infrastructure Law and the American Rescue 
Plan provided that direct funding to tribes that is so 
essential, because you know better than anybody else how 
programs should be administered in your communities.
    So, while we continue to support tribes assuming control of 
certain BIA programs, we need to recognize that if the funding 
isn't there, then you are going to be taking over a program 
that doesn't have the resources it needs.
    And resources are always key. So, we don't want to set up 
tribes to fail by asking them to take on responsibilities where 
we have not adequately funded those needs.
    As an example, we know there aren't enough BIA Law 
Enforcement Officers. Recently, while visiting the Mescalero 
Apache Tribe, they noted how there simply are not enough 
officers and they are always being pulled to other reservations 
in the huge, beautiful state of New Mexico.
    When I asked about have you thought about compacting or 
contracting, they said, we can't afford to because we would not 
have enough officers to basically cover every shift at the 
level that would be needed.
    This is an example of where tribes might have the legal 
ability to compact, but because resources are not there, there 
isn't the realistic ability to compact.
    So, we have seen increases in the BIA budget, especially 
over the last two Congresses that might make this a little bit 
easier, but we also know that we need to assist with the actual 
contracting itself and with those kinds of costs that come 
along with the compacting and contracting.
    Providing mandatory funding for critical functions like the 
105 leases and contract support costs is something we should 
consider, because when you compact and contract, you need to 
make sure that money is coming in, right? And when we have 
things like has happened now where we have such a delay in 
actually funding our government, that creates insecurity for 
you when you, I see all these heads nodding, because you know 
what it is like of now these are your employees saying, we 
don't know if we can fund you because Congress hasn't done its 
job.
    I am pleased to report that you are here on a really 
important day here at the House, because we will be voting at 
about 3:30 on the Appropriations Bill that will fund the agency 
that you compact or contract with.
    And the good news is that we are going to be providing $4 
billion for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Indian Education 
Bureau of Trust Fund Management. We are going to fully fund the 
contract support costs and payments for tribal leases.
    This is great news, that we are basically going to have 
flat funding. I also am very pleased, and we fought really hard 
to make sure that the Appropriations Bill looks like it does, 
that we didn't have any severe cuts. I am really pleased and 
since we are at this table, I want to give a shoutout to Don 
Young, who, when I was Chair of this Committee, was the Ranking 
Member, because this appropriations also includes advanced 
appropriations for the IHS, which is essential.
    And we know the IHS has many of its programs compacted and 
contracted, and with that advance funding our tribal members 
can get the healthcare they need. So, I want to sort of honor 
Don Young as I close and yield back.
    Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Hageman. Thank you.
    Now, I will introduce our witnesses from the panel.
    The Honorable Bryan Newland, Assistant Secretary Indian 
Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC, thank 
you for being with us today.
    The Honorable Deborah Dotson, President Delaware Nation in 
Anadarko, Oklahoma, thank you for joining us as well.
    And I will now recognize Mr. Schweikert, from Arizona, for 
1 minute to introduce the witness from his district.
    Mr. Schweikert. A whole minute, Madam Chair, Ranking 
Member.
    This is actually sort of fun for me because President 
Harvier is not only a friend, but when I am at home, I am on 
the community's land every day of my life. I have lived my 
entire life alongside the community.
    What is unique about President Harvier and his leadership 
is the Salt River Pima Maricopa is actually very sophisticated.
    It is an urban-suburban tribe and in many ways, they have 
been one of the pioneers of developing contracts. Remember, I 
believe they were the very first tribe in America that actually 
had the right to go to contracts with arbitration clauses.
    They were the pioneers in many of these things. So, as you 
are listening to witness testimonies and for those of you who 
have much expertise in this, please turn to the President, 
because they have a unique history of doing it quite 
successfully.
    Madam Chairwoman, my last self-serving comment is what you 
are doing is very important because those of us on Ways and 
Means are trying to find a way to do a tax hearing in Indian 
Country to start to see could we actually start to have a much 
more unified vision of tax equity, of contracting equity of 
these things so we could actually sort of make it all work 
together much more seamlessly.
    With that, thank you for being here. And now I run to the 
next meeting. With that, I yield back, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Hageman. Thank you, Congressman, and thank you for 
joining us today.
    Welcome to the Committee today. It is wonderful to see you.
    Moving on to the Honorable Cheryl Andrews-Maltais, 
Chairwoman Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head Aquinnah, Aquinnah, 
Massachusetts. Thank you for being here, Madam.
    And Mr. Jay Spaan, Executive Director Self-Governance 
Communication & Education Tribal Consortium from Tulsa, 
Oklahoma. Welcome to you as well.
    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 top 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 begins.
    The Chair now recognizes the Honorable Bryan Newland for 5 
minutes.

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

    Mr. Newland. Thank you, Madam Chair. Aanii Boozhoo. Good 
afternoon, Chair Hageman, Ranking Member Leger Fernandez, and 
members of the Subcommittee.
    My name is Bryan Newland. I have the privilege of serving 
as the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs at the Department 
of the Interior and I want to thank the Subcommittee for the 
opportunity today to discuss tribal self-determination and 
self-governance under the Indian Self-Determination and 
Education Assistance Act.
    That Act, often referred to as Public Law 638, is one of 
the most significant pieces of Indian legislation enacted into 
law in the last half century. And, as we have seen, over the 
past half century, this policy has been an unqualified success.
    Through Public Law 638, tribes have increased their tribal 
government capacity, strengthened tribal sovereignty, and 
created economic opportunities in their communities.
    At the Department, we have successfully used 638 funding to 
fulfill and advance our treaty and trust obligations regarding 
self-determination and self-governance.
    For example, the BIA has used funding provided by the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act 
to help relocate or protect tribes threatened by climate 
change.
    The Department expects to use 638 funding agreements in 
future IRA funding opportunities for climate resilience, fish 
hatcheries, and the Tribal Electrification Program in which we 
recently announced funding awards this week.
    I want to highlight two areas in particular where we have 
seen growth, success, and also challenges in advancing the 
policies of self-determination.
    Public Law 638 requires the Department to provide 
additional payments to tribes for the cost of infrastructure 
used to carry out government programs under a Self-
Determination Contract or Compact.
    These payments are called Self-Determination Leases or 
105(l) Leases, named for the section of the law governing this 
process. We recognize the importance of 105(l) Leases as an 
important tool to develop infrastructure in Indian Country.
    The Self-Determination Leasing Program allows tribes to 
build or improve critical infrastructure more quickly than 
would be possible under the Department's direct services.
    Our Self-Determination Leasing Program has grown 
significantly, from two tribes with three leases, back in 2019, 
now to 93 tribes proposing nearly 500 leases and lease renewals 
just last year.
    This Fiscal Year, the Department expects to have more than 
90 tribes with over 600 leases and lease renewals worth nearly 
$100 million under this program.
    This growth presents challenges, as the Department is 
processing all of these lease requests with almost the same 
staffing levels that existed in 2019, when we only had three 
leases.
    The second area I want to highlight is Public Law 477 
Workforce Development Program. While this law is distinct from 
Public Law 638, it is related and advances long-standing 
policies of tribal self-determination.
    This law allows tribes and tribal organizations to 
consolidate Federal funding from 12 different agencies for 
employment, training, or related services. It reduces 
administrative burdens and streamlines reporting requirements 
for tribes.
    A tribe or tribal organization that integrates funding from 
other agencies into a 477 Plan receives those funds from DOI 
through an existing self-determination contract or self-
governance compact.
    From a practical standpoint, this allows a tribe to include 
funding from outside the Department in its contract or compact. 
When this program works, as Congress designed, it allows tribes 
and tribal organizations to reduce joblessness in tribal 
communities, promote economic development, and strengthen self-
determination in the delivery of services.
    One of the challenging constraints in this program is 
working across agencies to determine whether a tribe's grant is 
connected to Workforce Development and eligible for the program 
under Public Law 477.
    And Madam Chair, finally, before I close, I want to thank 
the Committee for its work to enact the Progress Act and let 
you know that the Department is close to completing our 
negotiated rulemaking under that law.
    We expect tribal consultations to occur in the late spring 
and early summer, along with completion of a final rule by 
December 21 of this year.
    We acknowledge, at the Department, that there is room for 
improvement in our implementation of Public Law 638 and we will 
continue to work with the Committee, the Subcommittee, tribes, 
and Congress to meet the underlying goals of tribal self-
determination.
    Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity to testify today 
and I look forward to answering any questions members of the 
Subcommittee have.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Newland follows:]
  Prepared Statement of Bryan Newland, Assistant Secretary for Indian 
                Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior

    Aanii (Hello)! Good afternoon, Chair Hageman, Ranking Member Leger 
Fernandez, and members of the Subcommittee. My name is Bryan Newland, 
and I am the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs at the U.S. 
Department of the Interior (Department or DOI). Thank you for the 
opportunity to discuss Tribal self-determination and self-governance 
under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act.
Indian Self-Determination Education and Assistance Act (ISDEAA) 
        Overview

    The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA) 
authorizes Indian Tribes and Tribal Organizations to contract for the 
administration and operation of certain Federal programs which provide 
services to Indian Tribes and their members. Enacted in 1975, the 
ISDEAA is one of the most significant pieces of Indian legislation 
enacted into law and the foundation of Federal Indian policy for the 
last 50 years of. Under the Act, federally recognized Tribes may choose 
to have the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) provide direct services or 
operate BIA programs under an ISDEAA agreement. The ISDEAA established 
a new methodology for Indian Tribes and the Federal Government to work 
together to accomplish the intent of the President and the Congress in 
establishing and funding the various Indian programs administered 
through DOI and, specifically, the BIA.
    The ISDEAA allows federally recognized Indian Tribes, Tribal 
organizations, and Tribal consortia to assume and operate programs 
administered by the Department. This includes bureaus and offices other 
than the BIA, such as the National Park Service and the Fish and 
Wildlife Service, subject to negotiations, when the programs are 
available to Indian Tribes or Indians because of their status as 
Indians. The ISDEAA also provides the Secretary of the Interior and the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services discretion to include other 
programs they administer by the Secretary that are of special 
geographic, historical, or cultural significance to the participating 
self-governance Tribe requesting a funding agreement.
    Under Title I of the ISDEAA, a Tribe (or Tribal organization) may 
enter a self-determination contract with the appropriate Secretary to 
plan, conduct, and administer programs or services that Interior or the 
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) otherwise provide to 
Indian Tribes and their members. The term of such a contract may be up 
to three years, unless the Tribe and the Secretary agree to a longer 
term, subject to renegotiation for changed circumstances.
    Generally, under a Title I contract, DOI must approve any 
substantial changes to a contract. Under Title IV of the ISDEAA, a 
Tribe may enter a self-governance compact, comprised of a funding 
agreement and any addenda, for the Tribe to assume funding of, and 
control over, some federal programs, services, functions, or activities 
(PSFAs). The term of such a compact may be annual or multiyear. 
Generally, under a Title IV compact, a Tribe may redesign or 
consolidate PSFAs and reallocate funding without DOI's approval. There 
are currently 526 Tribes taking advantage of contracts under Title I 
and 295 Tribes taking advantage of self-governance compacts under Title 
IV. Across the Department, there are nearly 3,200 contracts and/or 
compacts as authorized by ISDEAA.
    The ISDEAA was intended to strengthen the ability of Tribes to 
determine how government services are delivered to people in their 
communities. The enactment of this law also transformed how the United 
States approached its trust obligations toward Tribes, American 
Indians, and Alaska Natives. Namely, rather than the Federal Government 
making decisions about what is in the best interest of Indian people, 
the ISDEAA put that power squarely in the hands of Indian people. As we 
have seen over the past half-century, this policy has been an 
unqualified success.
Notable Successes Using ISDEAA

    In the last 18 months, the BIA has taken multiple actions to 
fulfill its treaty and trust obligations regarding self-determination 
and self-governance. For example, the BIA has used funding provided by 
the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) and Inflation Reduction Act 
(IRA) to enable the relocation of critical infrastructure, and in some 
cases entire villages, threatened by rising sea levels and other 
impacts of climate change. Tribal communities, which often reside in 
those areas most at risk, are closely working with the BIA to ensure 
the safety of their people and to preserve their way of life.
American Rescue Plan Act of 2021

    The BIA received approximately $892 million through the American 
Rescue Plan Act of 2021. Those funds were directed to delivery of 
potable water, housing improvement, and Tribal Government, Social 
Services, Public Safety and Justice, Indian Child Welfare, and other 
related expenses. Of those funds, the BIA distributed $887 million to 
Tribes through mechanisms under the ISDEAA.
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) (Infrastructure Investment and Jobs 
        Act)

    The BIA received approximately $466 million for infrastructure 
projects and climate resilience initiatives through the BIL. That Act 
also made Tribal communities eligible for additional DOI programs to 
support building resilience to wildland fires and droughts, restoring 
ecosystems, enabling fish passage, and addressing legacy pollution from 
abandoned mine lands and orphan oil and gas wells. From those funding 
opportunities, the BIA has distributed $46.9 million to Tribes through 
mechanisms under ISDEAA.
Inflation Reduction Act (IRA)

    The Department received approximately $6.6 billion through P.L. 
117-169, commonly known as the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) to invest 
in a clean energy economy, key habitat restoration and land resilience 
projects, and environmental justice for historically disadvantaged 
communities. The total funding includes a $385 million investment for 
the BIA to pursue climate resilience and adaptation work and fish 
hatchery needs, as well as a new Tribal Electrification program. From 
initial IRA funding opportunities, since FY 2023, the BIA has 
distributed $8.2 million to Tribes through mechanisms under ISDEAA. The 
Department anticipates significant use of the ISDEAA funding agreements 
in additional funding opportunities for climate resilience, fish 
hatcheries, and the Tribal Electrification program.
Section 105(l) of ISDEAA

    Section 105(l) of the ISDEAA requires the Secretary upon the 
request of a Tribe or Tribal organization, to enter into a lease with 
the Tribe or Tribal organization for the facility used by the Tribe to 
carry out a self-determination contract, self-governance funding 
agreement, or grant under the Tribally Controlled Schools Act (25 
U.S.C. Sec. 5324(l)(1)). The Department recognizes the importance of 
105(l) leases as a mechanism for infrastructure development in Indian 
Country, as the leases ensure that Tribes and Tribal organizations have 
the proper facilities in place to carry out Federal functions under a 
self-determination contract or self-governance compact with the 
Department for functions such as education, general administration, 
public safety, and others. The section 105(l) program allows 
improvement of infrastructure and facilities in Indian Country more 
quickly than would be possible under DOI's direct provision of 
services.
    The section 105(l) program has grown significantly from two Tribes 
proposing and executing three leases in 2019 to 93 Tribes proposing 259 
initial leases and proposing 238 leases for renewal in 2023. In FY 
2024, the Department expects to have more than 90 Tribes with over 600 
lease renewals and new requests at a value of roughly $100 million. The 
Department notes that we have a significant backlog of 1,351 leases 
pending.
    In 2024 alone, the Department has already provided technical 
assistance to 37 Tribes and received proposals for an additional 76 
initial leases and 609 proposed renewals. It is challenging for staff 
to keep pace with the significant growth in this hugely successful 
program.
Self-Governance Under the ISDEAA and the PROGRESS for Indian Tribes Act

    At present, there are 295 Tribes participating in self-governance 
through 141 funding agreements with the Office of Self-Governance--
Indian Affairs (OSG). Self-governance Tribes file audits pursuant to 
the Single Audit Act but, unlike self-determination Tribes, self-
governance Tribes are not required to file the Financial and 
Accomplishments (SF-425 form) quarterly reports, which often positively 
impacts a Tribe's decision to join self-governance. Self-governance 
Tribes may opt to enter into multiyear funding agreements that span 
several years.
PROGRESS for Indian Tribes Act and updates to process

    The PROGESS for Indian Tribes Act (Pub. L. 116-180) amended the 
ISDEAA to conform it with the self-governance statute applicable to 
HHS. The PROGESS Act creates administrative efficiencies by enabling 
Tribes to carry out compacts with both DOI and HHS under a similar 
statutory framework. The PROGESS Act prohibits the Secretary from 
reducing the amount of funding under Title IV of the ISDEAA from year 
to year except as required by, among other things, ``a congressional 
directive in legislation or an accompanying report.'' This language is 
consistent with the language applicable to HHS. The PROGESS Act applies 
a rule of interpretation in favor of Tribes in the administration of 
the ISDEAA. It also provides Tribes the option to determine if the 
application of any ``law or regulation pertaining to Federal 
procurement (including Executive orders)'' will apply to construction 
programs carried out under Title IV. This follows the process 
applicable to HHS by providing a Tribe an option to file a final offer 
after negotiations between the agency and the Tribe fail to reach 
agreement.
    As the Committee is aware, the PROGRESS Act requires negotiated 
rulemaking process. The Department is very close to completing the 
PROGESS Act Federal and Tribal Committee drafting of the proposed rule. 
The PROGESS Act requires consultation with Tribes once the proposed 
rule is published in the Federal Register and prior to the final rule. 
The Department expects consultation sessions will take place during the 
late spring and summer months. We anticipate completing a final rule in 
the negotiated rulemaking process by December 21, 2024.
Areas for Improvement within the ISDEAA
Bureau of Indian Affairs Tribal Grant Schools

    The ISDEAA granted authority to federally recognized Tribes to 
contract with the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) to operate Bureau-
funded schools and to determine education programs suitable for their 
children. The Education Amendments Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-561) and 
further technical amendments (P.L. 98-511, P.L. 99-99, and P.L. 100-
297) provide funds directly to Tribally-operated schools, empower 
Indian school boards, permit local hiring of teachers and staff, and 
establish a direct line of authority between the BIE Director and the 
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs. School programs 
operated under the Education Amendments Act of 1978, as amended, which 
we refer to as ``297'' for shorthand, are best thought of as federal 
grantees, in contrast to the contract or compact arrangement with 
ISDEAA Tribes under Title I.
    In FY 2023, BIE School Operations established an Office of Indian 
Self-Determination to promote tribal participation in, and access to, 
educational programs and services. The BIE Self-Determination Office is 
working to increase BIE's Title I contracting capacity by providing 
responsive and consistent high-quality service to Tribes receiving both 
Title I contract and 297 grant funding. Under 297, Tribes or Tribal 
school boards are authorized to manage day-to-day operations of schools 
through grant funding specifically for educational programs. This 
contrasts with the ISDEAA, under which a Tribe generally assumes 
operation of federal functions for a wide range of programs, outside of 
educational programs. Additionally, the BIE School Operations Office of 
Self-Determination will expand outreach, advisory services, technical 
assistance and training to Tribes for alignment of 297 resourcing 
options while seamlessly combining Title I contracting options, with 
the goal of assisting tribes to achieve educational goals and outcomes 
that are both culturally informed and effectively matched to the 
academic and socio-cultural needs of their students.
    The BIA is also working with the BIE to further increase its 
contract oversight and grant awarding capacity by establishing and 
developing a self-determination program. The BIE hired a program 
manager to further lead and develop that program and is now working 
with the BIA to plan and implement a responsible transition of 
responsibility for its sites.
Closeout Processes for Title I Contracts

    On June 12, 2023, DOI's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) 
issued Report 2020-CDG-060, ``The Bureau of Indian Affairs Can Improve 
the Closeout Process for Public Law 93-638 Agreements.'' In that 
report, the OIG offered three recommendations that the BIA agreed to 
address. The OIG stated that the BIA is not actively managing the 
closeout process for Pub. L. 93-638 agreements and cited a small number 
of contract closeout actions they found within their contract test 
sample.
    The BIA has placed its priority on timely issuance of funds to 
Tribal governments. This prioritization has meant fewer resources are 
available to complete the administrative actions to close out completed 
contracts. The BIA is addressing DOI OIG's recommendations by directing 
BIA Regional Offices to immediately coordinate with Tribes to identify 
unspent funds and complete any required documents, reports, or tasks 
preventing closure of the agreements in accordance with the applicable 
laws, regulations, guidance, or other contract terms and conditions. 
The BIA will also engage with DOI's Office of Information Management 
Technology subcontractors to develop a cloud-based replacement for the 
current PL-638 application for ISDEAA agreements, which will include a 
module to track and close ISDEAA agreements. The BIA aims to launch 
this system by the end of FY 2024. Finally, the BIA is researching a 
process that would enable administrative contract closures to improve 
efficiencies for fully complete contracts.
    Separate from closeout of Title I agreements, the Department notes 
that any decision to begin to apply closeout procedures to self-
governance Tribes with agreements under Title IV of ISDEAA would first 
require a consultation with those Tribes. Self-governance Tribes and 
OSG have not yet closed out funding agreements during the lifetime of 
the program. With the passage of the PROGRESS Act, a self-governance 
Tribe is allowed to maintain its same funding agreement for many years. 
This new provision would mean that the closeout of a funding agreement 
could be difficult to achieve.
Public Law 102-477 and the ISDEAA

    Public Law 102-477, as amended, allows Tribes and Tribal 
organizations to consolidate certain federal funding streams from 12 
different agencies that a Tribe or Tribal organization has implemented 
for employment, training, or related services. Public Law 102-477 
greatly reduced administrative burden by streamlining program, 
statistical, and financial reporting requirements. The law provides 
that Tribes and Tribal organizations operating a plan under Public Law 
102-477 (477 Plan) complete a single narrative, statistical, and 
financial report based on their approved 477 Plan rather than 
completing multiple reports for individual programs. Most critically, a 
Tribe or Tribal organization that integrates eligible funding from 
other agencies into a 477 Plan commits to receive those funds from DOI 
(after the other agency transfers funds) through an existing ISDEAA 
self-determination contract (Title I) or self-governance compact (Title 
IV).
    Practically, this creates a mechanism for a Tribe or Tribal 
organization that has an approved 477 Plan to include funding from 
outside of the Department into that Tribe's ISDEAA contract or compact. 
When this process works as Congress designed, it allows Tribes and 
Tribal organizations to integrate the employment, training, and related 
services they provide from diverse Federal sources to improve the 
effectiveness of those services, reduce joblessness in Indian 
communities, and serve Tribally determined goals consistent with the 
policy of self-determination, while reducing administrative, reporting, 
and accounting costs.
Conclusion

    The policy of self-determination and self-governance is one of, if 
not the most, successful tool the Federal Government has to fulfill its 
treaty and trust responsibilities to Tribes. ISDEAA is widely supported 
by Tribes. It allows the Federal Government to better allocate funding 
resources to Tribes and Tribal organizations that are often better able 
to leverage resources to meet their unique needs. Chair Hageman, 
Ranking Member Leger Fernandez, and members of the Subcommittee, the 
Department appreciates the opportunity to discuss Tribal self-
determination and self-governance, and I thank you for the opportunity 
to provide the Department's views.

                                 ______
                                 
  Questions Submitted for the Record to Hon. Bryan Newland, Assistant 
     Secretary for 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. Several witness statements raised concerns about how 
the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Office of Self Governance 
(OSG) has communicated with the entities and how this resulted in 
delays and challenges for tribes to implement 638 contracts and/or 
compacts.

    1a) What changes need to be made by BIA and OSG to improve 
communication between these entities?

    1b) Are there statutory barriers to information sharing that 
Congress should address?

    Question 2. President Harvier's written statement mentioned BIA 
inefficiencies during the COVID-19 pandemic that have impacted their 
ability to provide services covered by their self-governance compact.

    2a) How is BIA improving these types of inefficiencies and what is 
the process for making sure tribal staff have the training and access 
needed to run programs?

    Question 3. The Committee has heard that there is a clear 
differentiation between what one BIA region classifies as an inherently 
federal function to another BIA region.

    3a) What is the process for communication between BIA regions on 
the issue of inherently federal functions?

    3b) Where can improvements be made to eliminate confusion?

    Question 4. Tribal governments and people have sought to 
proactively use fire to protect their communities from wildfire risks 
and for other purposes, but the BIA position on tribal fire use and 
tribal management of their own fire and fuels programs, including on 
trust lands, is unclear, particularly when tribal governments seek to 
engage in fire use, such as prescribed fire, on their lands without 
explicit approval from BIA. The Committee has heard that BIA is 
claiming that burn plan approval for prescribed fire is an inherent 
federal function, and thus cannot be part of a compact agreement with 
Tribes, and therefore Tribes are not able to include burn plans in 
their self-governance compacts or access recurring program funding for 
carrying out federal programs to implement prescribed burning.

    4a) Does BIA have a written policy regarding what constitutes 
inherent federal function with respect to approving prescribed fire 
burn plans on trust lands?

    4b) Is there any other reason beyond claims of inherent federal 
function that a tribe would not be able to compact related fire and 
fuels programs?

    4c) In developing any policy, did BIA engage in tribal consultation 
or otherwise seek tribal input?

    4d) To the extent that the BIA asserts that it must approve such 
tribal fire use, is BIA's position based on statute, regulation, or 
some other authority?

                                 ______
                                 

    Ms. Hageman. I thank the witness for their testimony and 
the Chair now recognizes the Honorable Deborah Dotson for 5 
minutes.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. DEBORAH DOTSON, PRESIDENT, DELAWARE 
                   NATION, ANADARKO, OKLAHOMA

    Ms. Dotson. Kulamalsi hach. Nteluwensi Deborah Dotson. Good 
afternoon, Madam Chair, Ranking Member, and members of the 
Committee. My name is Deborah Dotson. I have had the honor of 
serving as President of Delaware Nation for 7 years.
    Delaware Nation's existence on this continent predates the 
concept of written history. We memorialized our relationship 
with the United States by signing the very first Indian treaty 
in 1778, the Treaty of Fort Pitt, which provided us the right 
to a Congressional Delegate.
    I am pleased to be with you today to discuss Delaware 
Nation's experience operating programs under our self-
governance compact.
    We have seen great success with self-governance, but there 
are areas where improvement is needed to fully realize the 
potential power of the Act. We could suggest improvements in 
program efficiency and flexibility, but we will focus today on 
five specific issues that we have noted over the years.
    The first issue involves the transfer of funds. The Act 
requires Self-Governance staff to transfer funds to tribes 
within 10 days and yet, it is often, many months before funds 
are received.
    Chronic delay in the distribution of funding for an 
Interior program undermines the program's objectives and can 
leave tribes in dire straits. Delaware Nation is fortunate to 
have other resources available to float program operations 
until Federal dollars arrive, but as you know, too many other 
tribes cannot do so and Interior's delay often results in a 
horrible choice between keeping the lights on or serving their 
people.
    The second issue involves contract support costs. 
Currently, the Self-Governance Office provides contract support 
cost funding at a rate of 80 percent of the prior year and 
withholds the remaining 20 percent until year-end.
    There is no legal authority for that withholding. Again, 
this puts tribes in a position to rely on other resources, if 
they even exist, to cover Federal costs until Interior gets 
around to paying contract support costs.
    Congress should consider amending the Act to provide 
monetary penalties for non-compliance. Monetary penalties 
should be automatic and based on any amount that is transferred 
later than the 10-day statutory window. It is wrong to force 
tribes to foot the bill of government inefficiency.
    The third issue involves model agreements. It helps that 
the Act provides a model contract for tribes to use in 
formulating their 638 proposals, however, tribes encounter 
instances where BIA staff require more than the provisions of 
the model agreement. We assume good intentions by the BIA, but 
such add-ons only confuse participating tribes who work hard to 
follow the Act.
    To address this, the Act should either include all required 
provisions in the model agreement, or clarify that the 
provisions contained in the model are all that may be required. 
In short, tribes would benefit from the certainty that such a 
change in the law would bring.
    The fourth issue involves staffing levels. Each of the 
areas we have identified could be helped by the recruitment and 
retention of competent, trained staff within the Office of 
Self-Determination and Self-Governance.
    Staff turnover prevents BIA and tribes from forming 
collaborative relationships and makes it challenging for tribes 
to accomplish their priorities. When tribes ask the Office of 
Self-Governance, we are often told that the office is short 
staffed and is moving as fast as they can.
    None of this is a criticism of good and dedicated BIA 
staff, but a clear-eyed and honest focus on this chronic 
staffing issue is worthy of our collective attention.
    The final issue involves reporting years. The Act 
authorizes tribes to initiate self-determination contracts and 
self-governance compacts when the tribes decide to do so.
    Nothing requires a tribe to operate its contracts or 
compacts on the Federal Fiscal Year, yet BIA requires reporting 
on fixed dates that do not always sync to the tribe's program 
year.
    An example would be a report, which captures activities for 
the Federal Fiscal Year of October to September being used 
where a tribe's program year is April to March.
    Standard reporting would capture activities occurring 
across multiple program years. An amendment which syncs the 
reporting periods to the tribe's period of performance would 
improve accuracy in tribal reporting.
    I thank you for your time and the opportunity to testify on 
these important subjects and look forward to any questions you 
may have. Wanishi.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Dotson follows:]
    Prepared Statement of Delaware Nation President, Deborah Dotson

    Madam Chair, Ranking Member and members of the Committee, my name 
is Deborah Dotson and I am the President of Delaware Nation. I have 
served as President of Delaware Nation for six years. My Peoples' 
existence on this continent predates the concept of written history. My 
Nation memorialized our relationship with the United States by signing 
the very first Indian treaty with the United States in 1778, the Treaty 
of Fort Pitt,\1\ while the country was still in its infancy and while 
this legislative body existed as the Continental Congress. Our 
cooperation with the Continental Congress and our 1778 treaty providing 
material support and allowing troops to pass through our territory 
played a critical role in America's success in the Revolutionary War. 
Today, Delaware Nation has its governmental seat in Anadarko, Oklahoma 
and shares its jurisdictional area with two other tribes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ 7 Stat., 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I am pleased to be with you today to discuss Delaware Nation's 
experience in working with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) through 
the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act \2\ (ISDEAA 
or Act). Delaware Nation operates numerous programs under our Title IV 
self-governance compact with the BIA. We entered the self-governance 
program many years ago and transferred all the programs we previously 
operated under self-determination contracts into our self-governance 
funding agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ 25 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 5301 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While we have seen great success with the self-governance program, 
we have also encountered areas where improvement is needed to fully 
realize the power of the Act as originally envisioned by Congress. We 
could suggest many statutory changes that would benefit Indian Tribes 
across the United States by improving program efficiency and 
flexibility, but we will focus on specific issues Delaware Nation has 
noted over the years.
    Some of the areas where improvement is needed include, in no 
particular order, timely distribution of program funding, upfront 
distribution of one hundred percent of contract support cost funding, 
good faith negotiation between the BIA and Indian Tribes resulting in 
timely review and execution of contracts, compacts, funding agreements, 
and leases under Section 105(l), adequate staffing within the office of 
self-determination and the office of self-governance, and creating 
flexibility to synchronize performance reporting forms with the 
contracting or compacting Tribe's program year.
Timely Distribution of Program Funding

    ISDEAA requires the Office of Self-Governance to transfer funds to 
Tribes no later than ten days after the apportionment of such funds by 
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to the Department of the 
Interior (Interior or Secretary), the Department within which the BIA 
resides. Notwithstanding the requirement of the timely transfer of 
funds to Tribes, in practice it is rarely accomplished on anything 
approaching a timely basis.
    Indeed, it is often months and sometimes even into subsequent 
fiscal years before funds are fully distributed. In Interior's defense, 
for non-Interior funds that are incorporated into the funding 
agreements, there are often delays in the transfer of funds from the 
other departments to Interior such that it cannot distribute those 
funds in a timely manner. However, in the year 2024, with all the 
conveniences of advanced technology and accounting capacity, that 
should not remain a perennial problem. It could surely be overcome by 
concerted action across the federal government.
    That all being said, chronic delay in the distribution of funding 
for Interior programs undermines the program's objectives, is 
unacceptable, and can leave Tribes in particularly dire circumstances. 
Delaware Nation is fortunate to have other Tribal resources available 
to float program operations until federal dollars arrive. Many other 
Tribes across the country are not so situated and Interior's delay in 
transferring funds means a Hobson's choice between keeping the lights 
on or serving their people.
Timely Payment of Contract Support Funds

    Under the Act, Tribes are entitled to recover certain contract 
support costs for costs incurred in administering the contracts or 
compacts but which the Secretary otherwise would not incur in 
administration of the programs or which the Secretary does incur but 
pays from other sources. Again, ISDEAA requires that funds be 
transferred to Tribes within ten days of apportionment of funds from 
OMB to Interior. Nothing in ISDEAA allows Interior to withhold program 
or contract support cost funding and it is required to address those 
funding shortfalls whenever the shortfall becomes apparent. Interior is 
prohibited from funding less than the full contract support cost need.
    Currently, the Office of Self-Governance provides contract support 
cost funding at a rate of 80% of the prior year and withholds the 
remaining 20% until year-end. There is no authority within the Act or 
other federal law for such withholding of funds and it again puts 
Tribes in a position to rely on non-federal resources--if they even 
exist--to cover federal costs until Interior gets around to providing 
contract support cost funding.
    The Act requires full upfront payment of contract support costs due 
to Tribes, but the reality is much different. The Act should be amended 
to provide monetary penalties for non-compliance. Tribes should not 
bear the administrative and financial burden of pursuing relief under 
statutes such as the Prompt Payment Act where Interior clearly runs 
afoul of statutory mandates. Those monetary penalties should be 
automatic and include any amount that is transferred outside of the 
ten-day statutory window. Tribes must be made whole for being forced to 
foot the bill of governmental inefficiency.
Good Faith Negotiation and Timely Review and Execution of Contracts, 
        Compacts, Funding Agreements, and Section 105(l) Leases

    The Act requires that Interior negotiate in good faith all 
contracts, compacts, funding agreements, and section 105(l) leases. In 
fact, ISDEAA provides a model contract that purports to contain all 
provisions that are required for contracting. However, Tribes often 
encounter instances where BIA staff require more than the provisions of 
the model agreement. We assume that this is because the BIA has 
identified some legitimate purpose for doing so, but that does not mean 
that their actions are lawful, and administrative add-ons only confuse 
participating Tribes who work hard to comply with the letter of the 
Act. To address this, the Act should either be amended to include all 
required provisions in the model agreement or a statement that the 
provisions contained in the model agreement are all that are required. 
This is one of those places where Tribes would benefit from the 
certainty that such a change to the law would ensure.
    In addition, courts have held that Section 105(l) leases are 
incorporated into funding agreements under both self-determination and 
self-governance. Delaware Nation has been in Interior's 105(l) lease 
queue since December 2022. We sit here in March 2024 and Interior 
recently informed the Nation that it would likely be August 2024 before 
the Nation's request is even reviewed. This is one more glaring example 
of Delaware Nation having to endure delay, forcing it to continue to 
foot the bill for federal expenses through no fault if its own, all the 
while hoping that it will be made whole one day.
Adequate Staffing for Self-Determination and Self-Governance Offices

    Each of the areas we have already identified can be attributed in 
part to the lack of trained and experienced staff within the Offices of 
Self-Determination and Self-Governance. The Office of Self-
Determination is notorious for its revolving door for self-
determination officers within the regional and agency offices. This 
continuous changing of staff prevents Interior and Tribes from forming 
meaningful relationships and makes it nearly impossible for Tribes to 
make meaningful progress on initiatives that require focus and 
commitment from the regional and agency offices. The Office of Self-
Governance has never been adequately staffed. When Tribes reach out to 
the Office of Self-Governance to inquire about the status of funding or 
agreements, we are often told that the Office is short staffed and is 
moving as fast as it can. Interior also points to staffing shortages as 
the primary reason for being nearly three years behind in reviewing and 
negotiating its Section 105(l) leases. ISDEAA and its programs are too 
critical to Tribal governments and the people we serve to allow our 
federal partners to be chronically understaffed.
    Please understand, this is not a criticism of the good and 
dedicated staff that work hard every day within the BIA, but a clear-
eyed and honest focus on this chronic staffing issue worthy of our 
collective attention.
Syncing Fiscal and Programmatic Reporting with the Tribe's Program Year

    ISDEAA authorizes Tribes to initiate self-determination contracts 
and self-governance compacts when the Tribe determines it wishes to do 
so. Nothing in the Act requires a Tribe to operate its contracts or 
compacts on the federal fiscal year. However, fiscal and programmatic 
reporting forms require reporting based on fixed dates that do not 
always sync to the Tribe's program year. An example would be a 
reporting form which captures activities for the federal fiscal year 
(October 1-September 30) being used with a Tribe whose program year is 
April 1 to March 31.
    Using the standard form, the activities reported would be for six 
(6) months of one funding year and six (6) months of the subsequent 
funding year. Delaware Nation operates its government on an October-
September fiscal year but operates its self-governance compacted 
programs on a January 1-December 31 program year. As such, reporting 
forms do not always capture the correct data. A statutory amendment 
which syncs the reporting periods to the Tribe's period of performance 
rather than relying on standardized OMB forms would improve clarity and 
accuracy in tribal reporting under the Act.
Appropriate and Meaningful Consultation

    Finally, we want to be clear that we thank you for the opportunity 
to testify today and welcome the fact that you are holding this hearing 
to gain an understanding of potential improvements in the Act. Even 
though you have heard many thoughts regarding potential improvements in 
the Act, we think that you would probably agree that appropriate 
government-to-government consultation is necessary before any specific 
legislation is introduced that would amend the Act. That is not 
intended in any way to diminish this vitally important hearing but to 
acknowledge the expectations of Indian Country. That consultation is 
especially important insofar as Title I, on self-determination 
contracts, applies to federal departments beyond Interior. Which is why 
the Nation respectfully submits that it is imperative that Tribes be 
consulted on any proposed changes in the Act and that the impacts of 
such changes may have on non-Interior programs be considered carefully. 
All Tribes participating in either self-determination or self-
governance programs with any federal department must have a seat at the 
table.
    I thank you for your time and the opportunity to testify on this 
important subject. Delaware Nation is happy to work with this 
Committee, Congress, and the Administration to consider solutions to 
the issues raised today and those that may arise during Tribal 
consultation.
    Wanishi.

                                 ______
                                 
   Questions Submitted for the Record to Delaware Nation President, 
                             Deborah Dotson

            Questions Submitted by Representative Westerman

    Question 1. Your written statement expressed concerns with the lack 
of trained and experienced staff within the Office of Self-Governance 
(OSG).

    1a) Could you please provide examples of when the lack of trained 
OSG staff hindered your tribe from providing a service?

    Answer. Delaware Nation, like many other compacting Tribes, has 
experienced significant delays in the transfer of program and contract 
support cost funding from OSG. The explanation from OSG for delayed 
transfer of funds is that they lack adequate staffing and are therefore 
unable to keep up with the workload volume. Statements made by Delaware 
Nation are not intended as a slight against OSG or its dedicated staff. 
OSG simply does not have the level of staffing necessary to allow OSG 
to move all funding to all compacting Tribes in a timely fashion. 
Fortunately, Delaware Nation has had access to other non-federal 
resources which it has used to bridge the gap between the beginning of 
the program year and the date which funds are transferred. These non-
federal resources would be available for other services and 
opportunities had they not been redirected to float otherwise federal 
obligations.

    1b) And has there been follow up communication from OSG after the 
issue has been addressed?

    Answer. OSG is responsive to inquiries but simply is not equipped 
with the level of staff necessary to address the level of workflow for 
which it is responsible. So, at the end of the day, while Delaware 
Nation appreciates OSG's communication regarding staffing deficiencies 
it does nothing to address the underlying staffing issue or the 
workflow deficiency.

    Question 2. Several witness statements mentioned the Department of 
the Interior's lack of timeliness to distribute program funds under 
self-governance compacts.

    2a) Could you further elaborate on how this delay directly impacts 
tribes?

    Answer. When funds are delayed, Tribes are forced either to shutter 
these vital programs until funds are received or to redirect other 
tribal resources, if they exist, to operate the federal programs until 
federal funds arrive. Tribes often forego other economic opportunities 
to foot the bill for an inefficient federal government.

    2b) Could you further elaborate on how any funding delays have 
specifically impacted your tribe's self-governance programs?

    Answer. Delaware Nation consistently uses non-federal dollars to 
cover federal obligations until federal funds arrive from OSG such that 
Delaware Nation citizens continue to have access to critical resources 
without regard to when OSG transfers funds. This is only possible 
because Delaware Nation's economic ventures provide revenue to bridge 
the gap. Without those resources, Delaware Nation would be forced to 
close the doors to its programs until compact funding is transferred.

    Question 3. Where could Congress legislate regarding the 638 
compacting process that would improve the 638 negotiations?

    Answer. Because Interior is still working to promulgate regulations 
to implement the PROGRESS Act's amendments to Title IV--DOI Self-
Governance, it is currently unclear whether the PROGRESS Act's 
amendments achieve the intended results. This circumstance makes it 
difficult to identify additional legislative changes. Those PROGRESS 
Act amendments are the result of a decades-long effort by Tribal 
leaders and any further amendments must be developed through meaningful 
consultation. Delaware Nation is in favor of legislation to streamline 
negotiations by importing Title I's 90-day deemed approved contracting 
deadline into the Title IV compacting process. Delaware Nation would 
also support legislation to impose automatic monetary penalties payable 
to the Tribe or Tribal Organization where OSG fails to transfer funding 
consistent with statutory deadlines.

    3a) And what regulatory changes, if any, would you suggest to the 
Department of the Interior to improve the 638 compact negotiation 
process?

    Answer. Again, because compacting Tribes have not yet operated 
under the PROGRESS Act's forthcoming regulations, it is difficult to 
propose further regulatory changes. However, Delaware Nation would be 
in favor of regulations to implement the statutory changes identified 
above so long as those regulations are a result of meaningful 
consultation and negotiated rulemaking.

    Question 4. Has the issue of inherent federal functions impacted 
what programs and/or functions your tribe was able to include in your 
638 compact?

    4a) If yes, what was the function and or program that was deemed an 
inherently federal function?

    Answer. It is the responsibility of the Department of the Interior 
to identify the programs, functions, services, and activities, or the 
portions thereof, which may be transferred under 638 and Tribes are 
forced to rely on those determinations. This scenario makes it 
impossible for Tribes to know what other functions exist and how the 
Department of the Interior determined they were inherently federal.
    Delaware Nation has not been impacted directly by the issue of 
inherently federal functions but the Department of the Interior's 
inconsistent classification of functions can be interpreted to 
indirectly impact all Tribes including Delaware Nation. Improper 
classification of functions as inherently federal takes the function 
and associated funding off the table for assumption via self-
determination contracts and self-governance compacts.

    4b) And are you aware of any other tribes that were able to compact 
that function and/or program?

    Answer. N/A--please see response to prior question. We are aware of 
functions being transferred to one Tribe but not to another Tribe in 
the same Region but this has not happened directly to Delaware Nation.

                                 ______
                                 

    Ms. Hageman. I thank the witness for her testimony.
    The Chair now recognizes the Honorable Martin Harvier for 5 
minutes.

  STATEMENT OF THE HON. MARTIN HARVIER, PRESIDENT, SALT RIVER 
      PIMA MARICOPA INDIAN COMMUNITY, SCOTTSDALE, ARIZONA

    Mr. Harvier. [Speaking Maricopa Language] Kamduum. Chair 
Hageman, Ranking Member Leger Fernandez, and members of the 
Subcommittee.
    I am honored to offer testimony on tribal self-governance, 
compacting, and contracting. My name is Martin Harvier. I am 
the President of the Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community.
    We were established by Executive Order in 1879. Our 
community is home to the Auk Akimel O'odham, the Pima, and the 
Xalychidom Piipaash Maricopa Tribes located in the Phoenix 
Metropolitan area, the community spans 52,600 acres and has 
approximately 11,000 enrolled members that require significant 
government services to meet community needs.
    Our engagement with self-governance compacts began in 1995. 
Our initial compact included a handful of programs, such as 
road maintenance, social services, and law enforcement.
    Over time, we assumed control of additional programs 
including land, titles, and records, which is commonly known as 
LTRO. We also took in job training, transportation planning, 
and detention and corrections.
    We are particularly proud of our success with LTRO. Through 
self-governance, we have streamlined business processes and 
improved transaction times for leases and probates.
    Before self-governance, leases took 6 months for the BIA to 
record. Now, after we have taken over this responsibility, 
leases are recorded in 48 hours. This has allowed for 
tremendous economic growth in our community.
    However, challenges persist. As evidenced by our tribal 
trust evaluations, we still have work to do, including 
addressing many deficiencies that were amplified during the 
COVID pandemic.
    The pandemic underscored the need for improved access to 
Department of the Interior systems and timely staff training. 
Delays in DOI security clearances, internet connectivity 
issues, and dependence on external agencies for vital records 
hindered efficiency.
    As a result, we recommended several measures to address 
these challenges, such as increased staffing at the Office of 
Hearings and Appeals, develop backlog reduction plans, and 
improve access to the DOI technology that is necessary to 
fulfill self-governance agreements.
    I want to focus on the last point for a moment. In our 
community's last Trust Evaluation, we found a need to improve 
our LTRO responsibilities. The Trust Evaluation identified that 
we had limited staff that could access the Federal TAAMS 
System.
    We shared this frustration. We hired the required staff and 
had them on payroll, but the BIA had not completed its 
background checks. This took over a year. As a result, our 
community received a negative evaluation finding because of a 
process we had no control over. The finding is unfortunate, but 
our employees must have this access.
    Execution of our self-governance compacts depends on our 
community supplementing Federal funds. Last year alone, the 
community spent more than $37 million in tribal funds to 
accomplish compacted responsibilities.
    That is more than double the $14 million we received from 
the BIA for these functions. It is clear, the base self-
governance and direct service funding levels do not meet the 
actual needs of Indian Country.
    Furthermore, we support the advance appropriations for the 
BIA. Like the VA and IHS, advance appropriation would mitigate 
uncertainties during a government shutdown.
    Finally, we support the ongoing rulemaking for the Progress 
Act, which harmonizes self-governance compact administration 
and protects tribes from unauthorized terms.
    In conclusion, we remain committed to enhancing service 
delivery through self-governance contracting and compacting. We 
appreciate the Subcommittee's attention to these critical 
issues, and stand ready to work with you to advance tribal 
self-determination.
    Chair Hageman, Subcommittee Members, thank you for this 
opportunity to testify.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Harvier follows:]
   Prepared Statement of Martin Harvier, President, Salt River Pima 
                       Maricopa Indian Community

    Chair Hageman, Ranking Member Leger Fernandez, and members of the 
Subcommittee: thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on the 
important topic of tribal self-governance contracting and compacting. 
My name is Martin Harvier, President of the Salt River Pima Maricopa 
Indian Community (SRPMIC).
    On behalf of our Community I am happy to share our history and 
experience with Self-Governance Compacts through the Department of 
Interior (DOI), Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and to provide a few 
observations that may be useful for the Committee in its oversight 
capacity.
    By way of background, the Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community 
was established by Executive Order on June 14, 1879 and is home to two 
distinct tribes, the An Auk Akimel O'odham (Pima) and the Xalychidom 
Piipaash (Maricopa). Today, SRPMIC shares borders with the fast growing 
cities of Scottsdale, Tempe, Mesa, and Fountain Hills. The reservation 
encompasses 52,600 acres and we have an enrollment of approximately 
11,000 members.
    SRPMIC is part of the fabric of the east valley of the Phoenix 
metropolitan area and in order to serve our citizens best, government 
services need to be delivered in a way that is interoperable with our 
neighboring jurisdictions. Over time it has become clear that SRPMIC 
can best achieve this goal by taking on federal government functions 
through self governance.

    That is why our Community entered into its first Title IV Self-
Governance Compact on October 1, 1995. The first tranche of programs 
that were included in the Compact were:

     Tribal Scholarships

     Johnson O'Malley

     Tribal Courts

     Social Services (Indian Child Welfare Act, Welfare 
            Assistance Grant)

     Housing Improvement Program

     Law Enforcement

     Road Maintenance

     Agriculture

     Real Estate Services

     Real Estate Appraisals

    Over time the SRPMIC assumed the following additional programs:

     FY 2000--Job Training and Placement

     FY 2002--Tribal Transportation Planning

     FY 2003--Indian Reservation Roads Program

     FY 2006--Detention/Corrections

     FY 2007--Juvenile Detention Education

     FY 2017--Land Title Records Office

     FY 2022--Section 105(l) Leasing Program

    Among these, perhaps the most impactful has been the assumption of 
the functions of the Land Title and Records Office (LTRO). Through 
this, the Community has been able to improve transaction times for 
business leases, agricultural leases, home sites, right-of-way and 
probates. One of the key parts of the LTRO function is to have access 
to the BIA Trust Asset and Accounting Management System (TAAMS). Not 
only did the community bring the TAAMS system ``in-house'', we also 
hired and trained several staff people that are certified on the 
system.

    Along the way SRPMIC has gone through several Tribal Trust 
Evaluation audits (TTE) with the BIA. These periodic audits are meant 
to ensure the Community is faithfully upholding our responsibilities, 
but they also serve as an opportunity to both strengthen tribal 
programming as well as identify areas where the BIA and partnering 
Agencies can improve. For example, in the TTE completed in 2022, it was 
clear the pandemic greatly impacted the delivery of service. The audit 
highlighted a number of deficiencies, not with our process, but with 
BIA policy and procedure that we continue to struggle with today. This 
includes probate transactions, access to IT systems such as ProTrac and 
TAAMS, the security requirements for equipment and staff, and 
communication with other agencies and jurisdictions. More specific 
examples in these areas are noted below:

     Reliance on BIA-Western Region Office (WRO) Division of 
            Probate Services (DPS) for Data Entry: In the Fall 2019, 
            SRPMIC probate staff issued a monthly death report to all 
            of the agencies and sent the physical hard copy probate 
            cases to the BIA-WRO for data entry. BIA-WRO would complete 
            data entry into a ProTrac database and send the completed 
            probate package to the Office of Hearings and Appeals 
            (OHA). Upon the departure of the two tenured SRPMIC staff 
            members who knew how to navigate the system well, BIA-WRO 
            requested that the new SRPMIC probate staff members assume 
            the data entry role in ProTrac to assist BIA-WRO due to 
            their growing caseload. While SRPMIC was eager to take on 
            this data entry role, SRPMIC had limited access to the 
            requisite ProTrac system.

     Department of the Interior Requires Training for Systems 
            Use: SRPMIC staff are required to take various trainings to 
            utilize DOI trust systems/databases (ProTrac, TAAMS, etc.) 
            before staff are able to use the systems. During the 2022 
            audit time frame, there was no official probate training 
            for SRPMIC probate staff to attend. WRO staff instead 
            provided an informal training in March 2020 and it was 
            never completed due to the pandemic related closures and 
            work-from-home status of BIA staff.

     BIA/SRPMIC Office Closures and Remote Working Conditions: 
            On March 19, 2020, the Community began its ``work from 
            home'' status as mandated by SRPMIC Council. SRPMIC Offices 
            were closed and only limited staffing was allowed in the 
            buildings at any given time. The Community Council 
            instituted an Emergency Declaration for the COVID-19 
            Pandemic on April 1, 2020. This declaration remained in 
            place through March 16, 2022.

     SRPMIC Technology Needs for Laptop Procurement and 
            Imaging: SRPMIC staff worked diligently to ensure that work 
            continued during the COVID-19 Pandemic. During this time, 
            SRPMIC staff needed BIA support to gain remote access to 
            the DOI trust systems/databases. SRPMIC needed to procure 
            BIA-approved laptops to allow for work from home status 
            during the pandemic. It took time to confirm the specifics 
            for the laptops with the BIA and additional time to receive 
            the laptops due to supply chain issues during the Pandemic. 
            Once the laptops were received by SRPMIC, it took weeks to 
            have the BIA-WRO staff image the equipment. This delay 
            caused challenges for staff to complete and view work 
            product for probate and all trust functions. Additionally, 
            we experienced issues with the laptops being removed from 
            the BIA network and patch issues which required SRPMIC 
            staff to take laptops to BIA-WRO for repair and re-imaging.

     Department of the Interior Systems Clearances for Staff 
            and Access to trust systems: SRPMIC staff is required to 
            have DOI Security Clearance to utilize the electronic BIA 
            trust systems (ProTrac, TAAMS, etc.). This process takes a 
            new staff member between 6 to 24 months to gain access. 
            During the pandemic, the process on the BIA side came to a 
            halt and receiving the credentials necessary to bring a new 
            staff member online and functional still continues to be an 
            issue for new staff. SRPMIC does not have authority to 
            request access to additional trust systems in Identity 
            Information System (IIS) and DOI Talent database. The 
            Superintendent is considered the Supervisor in multiple 
            databases and he/she is responsible for this approval, 
            exacerbating delays. SRPMIC is not in control of any of 
            these functions and the Community must rely on BIA's 
            approval and processing of DOI Security Clearance 
            processing.

     Internet and Systems Connectivity from the BIA Salt River 
            Agency and the SRPMIC Office: Prior to the pandemic, SRPMIC 
            had continual Internet connection issues between the BIA 
            Salt River Agency Office and the Community Government. The 
            BIA owns the internet connection and system, and their 
            connection did not provide consistent or reliable access 
            for SRPMIC staff to conduct trust related work. In late 
            2019, the former BIA-WRO Director authorized an upgrade at 
            the BIA Salt River Agency offices at SRPMIC's expense to 
            create consistent and constant Internet connectivity. It 
            must be noted that prior to December 31, 2019, an SRPMIC 
            staff member working in the DOI trust systems would be 
            bumped from the system several times a day due to the 
            system's poor connectivity capacity. The connection upgrade 
            did not take place until March 2020.

     Dependence on Various outside Agencies: Per the Code of 
            Federal Regulations, specific supporting documentation is 
            required to be included in a completed probate packet. Some 
            of the delays in completing cases during the reporting 
            period were due to dependence on other jurisdictions to 
            provide the information. For instance, probate staff rely 
            on the WRO to provide the IIM account balances and 
            documentation which must be included as part of the probate 
            packet. SRPMIC must request birth certificates, death 
            certificates, marriage/divorce and certification of Indian 
            blood of relatives through other probate agencies, other 
            tribes or other local/state jurisdictions. Receiving 
            supporting documentation from other states is challenging 
            due to jurisdictional rules and requirements to obtain 
            documents. For example, California has been historically 
            difficult to obtain documents from and in these cases staff 
            have to request family members to request the documentation 
            from the State of California. During the pandemic, there 
            were staffing delays in neighboring jurisdictions and in 
            other jurisdictions where SRPMIC members lived. As an 
            example, from March 2020 to January 2022, it took Maricopa 
            County between 5 to 16 weeks to receive a death 
            certificate. SRPMIC probate staff also rely on the 
            Southwest Land Titles and Records Office (SWLTRO) and other 
            LTRO's for certified land inventories when Community 
            members own land at other Indian reservations. In some 
            instances, LTRO's sent the inventory immediately to SRPMIC 
            probate staff after receiving the notification of death. 
            However, by the time SRPMIC probate staff have a final and 
            complete probate package, SRPMIC staff would have to 
            request an updated land inventory (BIA informal guidance is 
            that certified inventories cannot be older than 6 months).

    While it is clear the pandemic caused and extreme dislocation of 
services, the SRPMIC believe there are ongoing issues at BIA that, if 
addressed, would today to improve their service and to make 
transactional work much more efficient. As such, the SRPMIC made the 
following recommendations to the BIA.

     The Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) needs to hire 
            more judges.

     OHA needs to develop a plan to address the SRPMIC and the 
            overall probate backlog. The probate backlog existed before 
            the pandemic and is only more extreme today. Community 
            requests that BTFA look at the backlog of probate cases by 
            WRO and other regional offices to compare the backlog 
            during the Pandemic in relation to the numbers noted in 
            this audit for the SRPMIC.

     WRO Probate Staff needs to provide and be a technical 
            assistance resource to SRPMIC and other Self-Governance 
            tribes. WRO Probate Staff need to clearly understand that 
            the SRPMIC only holds a small part step of in the Probate 
            process and that SRPMIC can be a resource to further 
            support the BIA probate process.

     BIA needs to provide a more efficient process to obtain 
            DOI Systems clearance and provide timely training for Self-
            Governance tribes. From the SPRMIC's experience we had to 
            fight for access to the database and then beg for quality 
            training on how to use the database. Waiting 6 to 18 months 
            to have a new staff person be functional is unproductive 
            and very inefficient. The SRPMIC has requested additional 
            support to assist with clearance and training on numerous 
            occasions over the last decade with only limited and 
            temporary relief.

    The SRPMIC embraces the accountability that needs to be placed on 
both the respective Tribe and DOI-BIA. To date, the SRPMIC 
recommendations have had no follow up from the agencies on how they can 
improve their programming. As a result, there may be similar findings 
with the 2024 TTE that has recently started.
    As this hearing is focused on the advancement of tribal self-
determination through P.L. 93-638 contracting and compacting, it is 
clear there is a tremendous amount of technical support that is needed 
with functions such as LTRO. The SRPMIC has shown it can successfully 
assume many federal functions of the BIA and we want to make sure our 
federal partner is also committed to this success. Similarly the DOI 
Inspector General Report in 2023 touched on the demands that are 
required by the BIA to make sure federal funding is used in the most 
effective way. We agree with the findings that greater internal 
controls are necessary to track the flow of federal funds and to the 
extent there are unspent savings we would support any redistribution of 
funds to tribal programs or bolster its internal requirements for 
programs such as LTRO and probate activity.
    More generally, we believe the BIA must uphold its federal trust 
responsibility to tribes to meet the needs of critical government 
important services that are provided throughout a reservation. As it 
was noted previously, the SRPMIC is located close to one of the largest 
metropolitan areas in the Country and the demands are great to provide 
necessary services throughout the Community. For instance, in recent 
years there has been a growing demand for public safety services 
including our implementation of the new authorities under the Violence 
Against Women Act (VAWA). As federal law evolves, BIA funding through 
compacts should reflect those growing responsibilities.
    When the SRPMIC first compacted programs with the BIA in 1995 we 
received $3,212,357.00. Following the addition of seven programs the 
SRPMIC currently receives approximately $14.7 million with an 
additional $6.9 million coming from USDOT for CMAQ. However, based on 
the growth of the Community, in terms of increased enrollment and 
development, the needs of the Community have grown exponentially where 
the self-governance funding has not kept pace. For example, in Fiscal 
Year 2023 the SRPMIC appropriated an additional $37.2 million of tribal 
funding for compacted programs to meet the unmet need that exists.
    The SRPMIC looks forward to working with the Congress and the 
Administration to continue to improve programming efficiency and the 
commensurate resources that are needed to fulfill the federal trust 
responsibility of the federal government to native nations.

    In addition to the recommendations to the LTRO and the Probate 
functions, the SRPMIC offers the following observations:

     The Congress should provide advanced appropriations for 
            the BIA, as there is provided for the Indian Health 
            Service. Just as there are advanced appropriations for 
            programs at the Department of Education, Department of 
            Housing and Urban Development, Department of Labor, and 
            Veterans Affairs, it should also be extended to tribal 
            programming to ensure that funds are available to maintain 
            critical Tribal government functions during times of a 
            federal government shutdown. Funding uncertainty causes 
            Tribes to redistribute funds from other Tribal programs, 
            resulting in diminished services.

     SRPMIC supports the ongoing rulemaking process to 
            implement the PROGRESS Act and does not have any additional 
            policy recommendations at this time. The major impact the 
            PROGRESS Act will have on SRPMIC is the application and 
            administration to Titles IV and V Self-Governance Compacts. 
            The law reconciles Title IV (BIA/DOL programs) and Title V 
            (IHS programs) of the Indian Self-Determination and 
            Education Assistance Act and reconciles the differences in 
            the two types of compacts to encourage more efficiency by 
            Indian Tribes who administer both types of Compacts. There 
            are also favorable changes in this section that require the 
            Federal Agencies to act in ``good faith'' and interpret the 
            federal laws, regulations, and executive orders in a manner 
            that will facilitate the implementation of Self-Governance 
            Agreements. There are additional technical changes to the 
            Funding Agreement negotiations regarding the Final Offer 
            process and timelines, and under what situations the 
            Federal Agencies can deny these Final Offers. Importantly, 
            there are other provisions that will protect tribes from 
            the Agencies that may impose unauthorized terms in a 
            compact or funding agreement. Overall these amendments will 
            provide more flexibility for the SRPMIC in its 
            administration of its BIA and IHS Self-Governance Compacts.

    Chair Hageman and members of the subcommittee thank you for the 
opportunity to provide testimony on this important subject and SRPMIC 
stands ready to be a constructive ally in improving services through 
the Self-Governance contracting and compacting process.

                                 ______
                                 

 Questions Submitted for the Record to Martin Harvier, President, Salt 
                  River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community

            Questions Submitted by Representative Westerman

    Question 1. In your written statement, you mentioned inefficiencies 
within the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) during the COVID-19 pandemic 
that impacted your tribe's ability to provide services.

    1a) Has BIA improved in this area, and has the agency created more 
opportunity for tribal staff to have the training and access needed to 
run programs included in your self-governance compact?

    Answer. While the initial issues raised regarding training for 
staff for Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community (SRPMIC) TAAMS 
access have mostly been resolved we have encountered an additional 
issue for Tribal staff that has impacted SRPMIC's ability to provide 
compacted services.
    On Thursday, March 7, 2024 SRPMIC was informed that the Salt River 
Agency would be receiving our Right of Way packets, but they will now 
be reviewed at the Western Region Office (WRO) level. Once the review 
has been completed, the Salt River Agency (SRA) would then approve the 
packet. This strays from the previous process of the SRA reviewing the 
packed with WRO approving the packet. SRPMIC was never notified in this 
change of process and this change in approval process has since created 
a backlog in right of way approvals pending with the BIA. Below are the 
pending packets and number of days pending.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5061.002


    .epsAs per the federal regulation, 25 CFR 169.123 (Rights of Way 
Over Indian Land), BIA is supposed to grant or deny the right-of-way 
within 60-days of receipt of a complete package. We are not aware if 
they have the necessary resources at the agency level, or if the agency 
was instructed to include the WRO, or if there is another reason. In 
any instance, the time of BIA review and approval of Right of Way 
Easements have declined significantly since 2006, per the graph below.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5061.003


    .epsThis delay in approvals can negatively impact SRPMIC's future 
Trust Evaluation's. The decline in approval of Right of Way packets 
greatly impacts SRPMIC's ability to provide trust functions to members 
and needs to be addressed immediately.

    Question 2. Please expand on the issues raised in your testimony 
surrounding the tribal trust evaluation audits with the BIA and where 
you see room for improvement.

    Answer. Under the Indian Self-Determination and Education 
Assistance Act in accordance with 25 CFR 1000.354 the trust evaluation 
should be completed annually. Since 2006, Salt River Pima-Maricopa 
Indian Community has only received 7 completed audits as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5061.004

    .epsWe understand that there may be staffing issues that prohibit 
the Division of Trust and Review from maintaining annual reviews for 
self-governance tribes. Our recommendation would be to provide adequate 
funds for the Bureau of Indian Affairs to address the staffing issues 
to maintain the codified legislation as it pertains not only Trust 
Evaluations, but BIA functions as a whole.

    Question 3. Several witness statements mentioned the Department of 
the Interior's lack of timeliness to distribute program funds under 
self-governance compacts.

    3a) Could you further elaborate on how this delay directly impacts 
tribes?

    Answer. Without advanced appropriations and the lack of timeliness 
to distribute funds under the self-governance compacts Tribes are left 
with two options.

  1.  Tribes that are capable of diverting different streams of funding 
            to cover PSFA's will do what is possible to meet the needs 
            of Tribal members.

  2.  Tribes without the ability or flexibility to cover PSFA's are 
            left to delay the delivery of PSFA's to Tribal members 
            until funding is provided.

    In either instance the delay in funding can impact the Tribe's 
ability to provide the compacted or contracted PSFA's, which ultimately 
impact Tribal members.

    3b) Could you further elaborate on how any funding delays have 
specifically impacted your tribe's self-governance programs?

    Answer. Since FY 2020, SRPMIC has not received a fully executed 
Annual Funding Agreement (AFA) for the fiscal year (FY) prior to 
October 1st. Without the AFA for the FY, SRPMIC does not receive a 
signed Authority to Obligate (ATO) until well into the FY. With this 
delay SRPMIC has to either rely on any carryover or Tribal funds to 
supplement PSFA's until ATO's are issued and money can be drawn. For 
example:

     FY 2023 SRPMIC did not receive the 1st FY 2023 ATO until 
            January 31, 2023, approximately 4 months into FY 2023.

     FY 2024 SRPMIC did not receive a fully executed amendment 
            to the Multi-Year Funding Agreement and AFA until February 
            12, 2024 and the 1st FY 2024 ATO was issued on February 29, 
            2024, approximately 4 months and 28 days into FY 2024.

    Without the timely funding that is due to Tribes to perform 
inherently federal functions, we are left to find alternative funding 
sources to maintain services until self-governance allocations are 
produced.
    SRPMIC recommend the addition of awarding officials within the BIA 
and the Office of Self-Governance to help facilitate the movement of 
ATO's to Tribes. As of now the only awarding official in the Office of 
Self-Governance is the Director and when she is not available a backlog 
of ATO's accumulates which delays the necessary funds being distributed 
to Tribes.

    Question 4. Where could Congress legislate regarding the 638 
compacting process that would improve the 638 negotiations?

    4a) And what regulatory changes, if any, would you suggest to the 
Department of the Interior to improve the 638 compact negotiation 
process?

    Answer. With the pending implementation of the PROGRESS Act, the 
law reconciles Title IV (BIA/DOL programs) and Title V (IHS programs) 
of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act and 
reconciles the differences in the two types of compacts to encourage 
more efficiency by Indian Tribes who administer both types of Compacts. 
There are favorable changes in this section that require the Federal 
Agencies to act in ``good faith'' and interpret the federal laws, 
regulations, and executive orders in a manner that will facilitate the 
implementation of Self-Governance Agreements. There more technical 
changes to the Funding Agreement negotiations regarding the Final Offer 
process and timelines, and under what situations the Federal Agencies 
can deny these Final Offers. There are other pro-tribal provisions in 
the law, including a provision that protects tribes from the Agencies 
trying to impose unauthorized terms in a compact or funding agreement. 
Overall these amendments are in provide more flexibility for the 
Community in its administration of its BIA and IHS Self-Governance 
Compacts. Other than this, the rulemaking process does not help (as is) 
with the deficiencies previously noted

    Question 5. Has the issue of inherent federal functions impacted 
what programs and/or functions your tribe was able to include in your 
638 compact?

    5a) If yes, what was the function and/or program that was deemed an 
inherently federal function?

    Answer. In FY 2017 SRPMIC assumed the Land Titles and Records 
(LTRO) function that was deemed an inherently federal function after 
many years of discussion between SRPMIC and BIA.

    5b) And are you aware of any other tribes that were able to compact 
that function and/or program?

    Answer. SRPMIC is aware of other Tribes that were able to compact 
the LTRO. We are also aware of additional Tribes who wish to compact 
LTRO but are being told that this is not an inherently federal function 
and being denied the addition to their compact.

                                 ______
                                 

    Ms. Hageman. I thank the witness for his testimony.
    The Chair now recognizes the Honorable Cheryl Andrews-
Maltais for 5 minutes.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. CHERYL ANDREWS-MALTAIS, CHAIRWOMAN, 
 WAMPANOAG TRIBE OF GAY HEAD AQUINNAH, AQUINNAH, MASSACHUSETTS

    Ms. Andrews-Maltais. Good afternoon, Madam Chairwoman, 
Ranking Member, and honorable Subcommittee Members. Thank you 
for the opportunity to testify here today.
    My name, again, is Cheryl Andrews-Maltais and I am the 
Chairwoman of the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head Aquinnah. My 
tribe has lived on our Aboriginal homelands since time 
immemorial and we have occupied the island Noepe, what is also 
known as Martha's Vineyard, for over 13,000 years.
    We are part of the Great Wampanoag Nation and we are the 
first people to meet the pilgrims in 1620 and we were the 
original signatories to the first treaty in this hemisphere, 
the 1621 Treat of Peace between us and King James I.
    Like other tribes in New England, we were the first to 
endure colonial laws, which were written to limit and take away 
our inherent sovereignty, our rights, our culture, our lands, 
and our traditional way of life.
    But despite over 400 years of this attempted genocide and 
acculturation, we remain here strong and resilient. I began 
with this brief history of my people as an example of the fact 
that most of our tribes have faced, with other treaties, with 
the United States.
    Before contact, as Indigenous Peoples of these lands, all 
tribes maintained thriving communities and robust economies 
with significant intertribal trade and commerce, political 
alliances and sophisticated Indigenous knowledge, through which 
we utilized, maintained, managed, and preserved our natural 
resources.
    Our rights to practice our way of life was given to us by 
the Creator as sovereign Tribal Nations and we exercise those 
rights as individual governments and stewards of our land and 
our natural resources for ourselves and our future generations.
    The Indian policies that were initially established were 
devised to strip us of all that we knew and held dear. They 
were specifically designed to kill the Indian and eradicate us 
from existence, a systematic plan to divest us of all of our 
lands and natural resources and a way to enforce us into 
submission and into a way of life foreign to us resulting in 
the deaths of hundreds of thousands of us through war, 
starvation, disease, and broken spirits.
    However, we are still here. We have survived resistant, 
resilient, and strong. Through the centuries, we have also 
witnessed the failed policies of the United States as they have 
intended to try to help us as Native peoples.
    As documented in the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights: A 
Quiet Crisis and its follow-up report, Broken Promises, the 
United States has failed to meet its trust and treaty 
obligation and has failed to adequately fund tribes and Federal 
agencies in order to meet its obligations to the tribes.
    However, a dynamic shift in the Indian policies came with 
the passage of the Indian Self-Determination and Education 
Assistance Act. This forward-thinking legislation was one of 
Congresses first efforts to meaningfully acknowledge Tribal 
Nations sovereignty and recognize our ability to administer 
programs and services at a higher level of expertise and 
effectiveness then before.
    It empowered our Tribal Nations across the country to 
assert our sovereignty and determine our own destinies, which 
has had far better outcomes.
    This is the route that my tribe chose. Self-governance has 
provided a mechanism through which we have been able to better 
provide for our people. Self-governance has been 
transformative.
    This could not have been proven more clearly than with the 
accomplishments of so many tribes during the recent COVID 
pandemic. Tribes were provided direct Federal funding with 
simple specific guidance for the use of the funds.
    And, like with self-governance, we demonstrated how well we 
can do our jobs when given the resources and the Federal 
Government steps out of the way.
    While some strides have been made, the government still 
seems to treat our sovereign nations as wards of the government 
with a paternalistic perspective. Federal funding across Indian 
Country is often delivered through a competitive grant process 
or through states.
    Grant funding fails to reflect the unique nature of Federal 
trust obligation and tribal sovereignty by treating Tribal 
Nations as non-profits rather than governments, which is an 
abrogation of the Federal trust responsibility.
    Advancing self-determination and self-governance is a must. 
The expansion of the ISDEAA authorities would be the next 
evolutionary step for the Federal Government's recognition of 
tribal sovereignty and would reflect its full commitment to 
tribes.
    As previously noted, we Tribal Nations are political, 
sovereign entities with the status that stems from our inherent 
sovereignty and we, as self-governance peoples, predate the 
founding of the United States.
    We call upon Congress to enact legislation that expands 
self-governance capabilities across the Federal Government so 
that we may fully exercise our inherent sovereign rights to 
manage our affairs and resources.
    Thank you for your attention to this critical issue, and I 
stand ready to assist in any way to work together to strengthen 
tribal sovereignty and self-determination.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Andrews-Maltais follows:]
  Prepared Statement of Chairwoman Cheryl Andrews-Maltais, Wampanoag 
                       Tribe of Gay Head Aquinnah

    Good Afternoon Chairwoman Hageman, Ranking Member Fernandez and 
Honorable Subcommittee Members, thank you for the opportunity to 
testify regarding the issue of: Advancing Tribal Self-Determination: 
Examining the Bureau of Indian Affairs' 638 Contracting.''
    My name is Cheryl Andrews-Maltais and I am the Chairwoman of the 
Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head Aquinnah currently serving in my fifth term 
and a Board Member of the United South and Eastern Tribes (``USET''). 
My Tribe has lived in our ancient aboriginal homelands since time 
immemorial and have occupied the island of Noepe (also known as 
Martha's Vineyard) off the coast of Massachusetts for over 13,000 
years. We are part of the Great Wampanoag Nation and are know as ``The 
People of the First Light''. Not only are we the People of the First 
Light, we are the Peoples of many firsts: we are the People who had 
first contact with the Pilgrims in 1620 in Pawtuxet which now known as 
Plymouth and we are the People with whom King James I of England made 
the first Treaty in this hemisphere, the 1621 Treaty of Peace. This 
Treaty recognized and respected the sovereignty of the both our 
sovereign nations--The Wampanoag Nation and Britain. We are also the 
survivors of the first germ warfare in this hemisphere perpetrated 
against our People to decimate our population and steal our lands. We 
are the People who were put into the first concentration camp in this 
hemisphere during Metacom's (also known as King Philip's) War. And we 
were the first People to have our lives, lands and natural resources 
stolen from us through murder, trickery and enacted laws, specifically 
designed to eliminate us through the attempted and systematic cultural 
and literal genocide of our People. Like other New England Tribes, we 
were the first to endure Colonial laws that were written to limit or 
take away our inherent sovereign rights, our culture, our ceremony and 
spirituality and our traditional ways of life and living.
    However, while we are some of the first People to experience and 
survive the devastation of Colonialism, despite over 400 years, four 
centuries of this attempted genocide and attempted acculturation and 
colonialism, we are still here; resistant, resilient and strong. Before 
contact, as the Indigenous Peoples of these lands, we maintained 
thriving communities and robust economies with significant intertribal 
trade and commerce, political alliances and sophisticated Indigenous 
knowledge; through which we utilized, maintained, managed and preserved 
our natural resources for our sustenance and subsistence. Our right to 
live and practice our ways of life was given to us by our Creator and 
as sovereign Tribal Nations, we exercised those rights as independent 
governments and stewards of our lands and natural resources for 
ourselves and our future generations to come.
    I began with this brief history of my People, as an example of most 
of our Tribes who have faced similar if not the same fate, whether 
their Treaties or agreements were with another country or the United 
States. We all had thriving communities and robust economies, our 
traditional ways of life and natural resource management which has 
sustained us. Our lands and resources were so bountiful and attractive; 
that when the foreigners came, they coveted them so much, that they 
would do anything to possess them. This was the beginning of the Indian 
policies established to strip us of all that we knew and held dear, our 
culture, traditions, our lands and our natural resources. These 
policies, designed to ``kill the Indian'' and eradicate us from our 
lands were specifically designed to remove us from all that we knew and 
honored. Despite the promises made in the Treaties in exchange for 
peace, or access to our resources, these policies were actually a 
systematic plan to divest us of all of our lands and natural resources. 
These policies were designed as a way to try to force us into 
submission, into a way of life foreign to us, resulting in the death of 
hundreds of thousands of us through wars, starvation, disease and 
broken spirits. However we still survived, resistant, resilient and 
strong.
    Through these centuries, we have witnessed the failures of these 
Indian policies, and the inability of the United States to keep its 
promises; promises made to us in exchange for the lives of our 
Ancestors, our lands and natural resources. As documented in the United 
States Commission on Civil Rights 2003 Report: A Quiet Crisis and its 
2018 follow up Briefing Report: Broken Promises, the United States has 
failed to meet its trust and treaty obligations and has failed to 
adequately fund Tribes, and/or agencies like Indian Affairs in order to 
meet their obligations to the Tribes. While the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs has made significant strides in changing the culture within the 
agency to better support Tribal Nations, there still seems to be 
pressure from Congress to treat sovereign Tribal Nations as wards of 
the government, with a paternalistic perspective, disregarding that 
Tribal Nations have a unique political relationship with the Unites 
States, unlike any other political subdivision or non-profit 
organization.
    Through our tenacity, we have been able to demonstrate that despite 
the United States' failure to meet its treaty and trust 
responsibilities our Tribal Nations remain, that we are the same strong 
resistant and resilient People, with the knowledge and capacity to care 
for our own People. We have been able to demonstrate that the polices 
of the United States have not succeeded in doing what they were 
intended to do. Nevertheless, during this time, we also realized that 
we, as sovereign Tribal Nations, can assist the United States in 
fulfilling its trust and treaty obligations. We recognized that by 
providing us with the resources we need for us to rebuild our own 
Communities and economies, then stepping aside while we provide the 
programs and services that we design to best meet the needs of our 
People, we can all do better.
Advancing Self-Determination Through the Indian Self-Determination and 
        Education Assistance Act

    A dynamic shift in the policies and way of thinking, came with the 
passage of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act 
(ISDEAA) in 1975 (Public Law 93-638). I am honored to address you today 
regarding the critical matter of advancing self-determination through 
the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 93-
638, 25 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 5301 et seq.). This landmark legislation has 
empowered Tribal Nations across the United States to assert our 
sovereignty and determine our own destinies.
    This forward-thinking legislation was one of the first efforts to 
meaningfully acknowledge Tribal Nations' sovereignty and recognize our 
ability to administer the programs and services, promised to us by the 
United States, at a level of expertise and effectiveness which has had 
better outcomes than ever before. One of the fundamental aspects of the 
Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act is the 
distinction it draws between ``self-governance'' under Title IV and 
``self-determination'' under Title I.
    Title IV of the Act allows participating Tribes to negotiate 
funding agreements with the Department of the Interior for Public Law 
93-638 programs, granting Tribes the authority to assume control over 
these programs and service. This is the route my Tribe chose and which 
has allowed us to design our own programs and services in a manner that 
best serves our Tribal Members and their needs.
    A key differentiator between self-determination contracts and self-
governance compacts lies in the level of tribal flexibility afforded. 
While Tribes under Title I contracts must seek approval from the 
Department of the Interior for substantial changes, Tribes under Title 
IV compacts have greater autonomy. They can redesign or consolidate 
Public Law 93-638 programs and reallocate funds within selected 
programs without prior approval from the Department of the Interior. 
This is an essential aspect of Tribal self-determination. Tribes make 
the best decisions with regard to the effectiveness of program and 
service delivery to their People.
    With the expansion of Self-Governance through the amendments of the 
ISDEAA under Title IV in 2000, Tribes have been able to unlock more 
opportunities for creative programing and community building by 
negotiating directly with Federal Agencies for the administration of 
the funding. As this success demonstrated the effectiveness of Tribal 
decision making and innovation when it came to designing and delivering 
programs and services, the expansion of the rights and responsibilities 
of the Tribal Nations proved that Tribal control, would not only assist 
the United States in fulfilling its trust and treaty obligations to 
Tribes, it benefited both the Tribes and the United States.
    My Tribe, the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah), became the 
first self-governance Tribe in the Eastern region. The Tribe's decision 
to pursue self-governance underscores the importance of enabling Tribes 
to exercise genuine self-determination over their affairs without the 
need for constant oversight from Federal agencies. While this has been 
a strong step forward, there is still the need for greater funding, 
self-governance expansion and flexibilities for the Tribal Nations to 
truly flourish.
    The potential for even greater success is with the expansion of 
Self-Determination and Self-Governance. In my fifth term as Chairwoman, 
I have witnessed firsthand the transformative power of self-governance. 
This could not have been proven more clearly than with the 
accomplishments of so many Tribes during the recent COVID-19 Pandemic. 
This was the first time that all Tribes were provided direct Federal 
funding, with simple and specific guidance for the use of those funds, 
and Tribes demonstrated how well we can do our jobs, when given the 
resources and the government steps out of the way. Tribes, who were 
among the most vulnerable populations, did a far better job in 
preventing, preparing for and responding to the deadly COVID-19 
pandemic than any other government instrumentality. For example, our 
Tribe's ability to develop and manage our own COVID-19 response 
programs, without waiting for permission from the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs has been instrumental in protecting the health and well-being 
of our community during these challenging times. Self-governance gave 
us the ability to respond quickly, mitigating the number of cases and 
ultimately deaths caused by COVID-19.
    In addition to leading my Tribal Government for five terms as a 
Self-Governance Tribe, I previously served as a Senior Advisor to the 
Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs, and I currently serve on various 
national advisory councils and committees like the BIA and IHS Tribal 
Self Governance Advisory Committee and the Heath and Human Services 
Secretary's Tribal Advisory Committee. It is with this experience in 
mind that I urge the expansion of self-governance to all Federal 
agencies, programs, and funds. Much of the Federal funding across 
Indian Country is delivered through the competitive grant process (and 
often through the states). Not only is this an abrogation of the 
Federal trust responsibility to force Tribal Nations to compete for 
Federal dollars, but the competitive grant process often precludes many 
Tribal Nations from having access to those dollars at all. Grant 
funding fails to reflect the unique nature of the Federal trust 
obligation and Tribal sovereignty by treating Tribal Nations as non-
profits rather than governments. Self-governance Contracting and 
Compacting should be an available option across the Federal system.
    Many opportunities still remain to improve and expand upon the 
principles of self-governance and self-determination. An expansion of 
ISDEAA authorities to all programs across the Federal government would 
be the next evolutionary step in the Federal government's recognition 
of Tribal sovereignty and reflect its full commitment to Tribal Nation 
sovereignty and self-determination. The expansion of self-governance 
contracting and compacting will not only empower us to better serve our 
citizens and communities, but it will enhance our abilities to manage 
our lands. Expansion would empower Tribal Nations to administer Federal 
programs in co-management, stewardship, agriculture, deployment and 
maintenance of critical infrastructures, and pursue economic 
development on our lands. We call on Congress to enact legislation that 
expands our self-governance capabilities across the Federal government 
so that we may fully exercise our inherent sovereign rights to manage 
our affairs and resources.
    Despite the success of Tribal Nations in exercising authority under 
the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA), 
the goals of self-governance have not been fully realized. As Tribal 
Nations, we are political, sovereign entities whose status stems from 
the inherent sovereignty we have as self-governing peoples that pre-
dates the founding of the United States. The U.S. Constitution, 
Treaties, Statutes, Executive Orders, and judicial decisions all 
recognize that the Federal government has a fundamental trust 
relationship to Tribal Nations, including the obligation uphold the 
right to self-government. Our Federal partners must fully recognize the 
inherent right of Tribal Nations to fully engage in self-governance, so 
we may exercise full decision-making in the management of our own 
affairs and governmental services.
    All Federal programs and dollars must be eligible for inclusion in 
ISDEAA self-governance contracts and compacts. We must move beyond 
piecemeal approaches directed at specific functions or programs and 
start ensuring that Tribal Nations have real decision-making in the 
management of our own affairs and assets. It is imperative that Tribal 
Nations have the expanded authority to redesign additional Federal 
programs to appropriately serve our communities as well as have the 
authority to redistribute funds to administer services among different 
programs as necessary. To accomplish this requires a new framework and 
understanding that moves us further away from the current archaic, 
paternalistic approach of the Federal government managing Indian 
affairs.
    Advancing Self-Determination is a must as funding is inadequate, 
human resources are scarce and the relationship between Tribal Nations 
and the Bureau of Indian Affairs ever-evolving. In the almost 50 years 
since the passage of the ISDEAA, Tribal Nations have demonstrated our 
capacity and expertise to take on more Federal responsibilities when 
and if they so choose. It is time to begin to re-envision the role of 
the Bureau from paternalistic regulator to a true partner and advocate 
for Tribes as we continue to serve our people.
Authorize Interagency Transfer of Federal Funds to Support Tribal 
        Programs and Services

    The Federal government has a long track record of failing to uphold 
its trust and treaty obligations to fully fund Tribal programs and 
services. USET SPF fully supports the ability of Tribal Nations to 
request and receive funds from any Federal agency through ISDEAA 638 
self-governance contracts and compacts.
    Since passage of ISDEAA, Tribal Nations have become experienced in 
managing complex Federal programs under these types of agreements. 
These agreements empower us to administer Federal funds in a manner 
that we deem appropriate and necessary to achieve our goals and 
priorities to better serve our citizens and communities. The 638 
contracting and compacting method empowers our Tribal Nations to fully 
exercise our sovereignty and self-determination. Other methods of 
Federal funding, especially grant and competitive grantmaking models, 
treat Tribal Nations as not-for-profit entities, instead of sovereign 
governments, and create unnecessary barriers to services provided in 
fulfillment of perpetual trust and treaty obligations. Under a 638 
mechanism, Tribal Nations can determine how to utilize funds received 
from Federal agencies to appropriately utilize such funds to better 
serve our citizens and communities.
Expand the 477 Program Across the Federal Government

    Established in 1992 by Public Law 102-477 (P.L. 102-477), the 477 
program was intended to reduce unemployment in Tribal communities by 
establishing employment opportunities consistent with the purposes of 
the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA). 
The program also sought to increase the effectiveness of employment and 
training programs by streamlining administrative requirements through 
consolidation of budgeting, reporting, and auditing systems. Congress 
amended the 477 program through the, ``Indian Employment, Training and 
Related Services Consolidation Act 2017'' (P.L. 115-93), which 
empowered Tribal Nations and organizations to consolidate eligible 
employment, training, and related services from different Federal 
sources. The intention of this was to reduce the administrative, 
reporting, and accounting cost burdens on Tribal Nations and 
organizations.
    The 477 program 2017 amendments also directed Federal agencies to 
sign an Interagency Memorandum of Agreement (Interagency MOA) to 
implement the consolidation of eligible employment and training 
programs across a number of Federal agencies. However, following the 
Interagency MOA that was signed in December 2018--without Tribal 
consultation--other Federal agencies sought to implement their 
employment and training programs using their own methods and 
prerogatives without Department of the Interior (DOI) leadership and 
direction. It was not until October 7, 2022 that the Administration 
announced the signing of an updated Interdepartmental MOA to implement 
the 477 program. The 2022 Interdepartmental MOA has sought to 
streamline plan approval procedures and re-affirmed the decision-making 
authority of the Secretary of the Interior in approving 477 Program 
plans. The goal of the 2022 Interdepartmental MOA is to increase Tribal 
Nation economic resilience through employment and training programs and 
services based on our Tribal community priorities and initiatives.
    The 477 program serves as a positive model for reducing reporting 
burdens on Tribal Nations and organizations, as it eliminates 
underlying reporting requirements for Federal programs integrated into 
each 477 plan and replaces them with a single annual report. For these 
reasons, I strongly recommend that Congress and the Subcommittee on 
Indian and Insular Affairs advance legislation to expand the 477 
Program across the entirety of the Federal government. Enacting a law 
that will reduce reporting burdens and streamline administrative 
requirements for Tribal Nations will support our efforts in Nation 
rebuilding and ensure our economic resilience through Tribal-centric 
goals and initiatives in employment and training services.
The Directives of EO 14112 Must be Made into Law

    On December 11, 2023, President Biden Issued Executive Order 14112, 
``Reforming Federal Funding and Support for Tribal Nations to Better 
Embrace our Trust Responsibilities and Promote the Next Era of Tribal 
Self-Determination'' (EO 14112). This Executive Order was issued to our 
inherent sovereignty and self-determination to advance economic growth, 
pursue Nation rebuilding, and directly address the economic, social, 
and public health priorities of our citizens. The current service model 
of Federal funding allocation, administration, and oversight remains a 
paternalistic, pre-self-determination era mechanism that stifles the 
proper management and use of Federal resources in Indian affairs. In 
order to usher in a new era of Tribal self-determination, Federal laws 
and regulations must be rescinded or revised to truly advance our 
sovereign efforts to pursue economic development and Nation rebuilding 
for the improved economic, social, and public health of our 
communities. We remind Congress and the Subcommittee, however, that no 
level of economic success attained by Tribal Nations diminishes or 
eliminates the United States' moral and legal trust and treaty 
obligations to fully fund Tribal programs and services. While ISDEAA 
638 contracting and compacting was an initial, positive step forward in 
advancing our sovereignty and self-determination, the Federal 
government must remove statutory and regulatory barriers for us to 
appropriately manage Federal programs and funds for the benefit of our 
communities and citizens.
Oversight is Needed to Accurately Verify Tribal Funding Levels Without 
        Penalizing Tribes

    Congress should exercise its oversight authority in determining how 
much actual funding actually reaches Indian Country. The Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) asserts that over $20 billion in Federal 
dollars is appropriated to Indian Country annually. From the 
perspective of the Tribes and Tribal advocates, including those who 
serve on budget formulation committees for Federal agencies, this 
number seems to be widely inflated, with far less actually reaching 
Tribal Nations and Tribal citizens. We suspect that OMB arrives at this 
figure by tallying the amount for which Tribal Nations and entities are 
eligible, regardless of whether these dollars actually reach Indian 
Country. OMB should be required to provide a full accounting of Federal 
funding which is actually distributed to Indian Country. To date, OMB 
has not responded to this request. However, this information is 
absolutely essential to the measurement of the Federal government's own 
success in meeting its obligations and the work of Tribal Nations.
    In reading through the Office of the Inspector General Report: The 
Bureau of Indian Affairs Can Improve the Closeout Process of Public Law 
93-638 Agreements, I believe it is incumbent upon the Bureau to ensure 
that all appropriated funds are utilized effectively and efficiently to 
fulfill their intended purpose: enabling Tribes to provide essential 
government services for their Tribal Members and the close-out process 
is a critical component of verifying those funds. And while the Bureau 
concedes to many of the Report's observation and has agreed to 
corrective measures, the Report's tone still resonates with a 
paternalistic view of the relationship between the Bureau and the 
Tribal Nations. Let me be clear--the United States' trust and treaty 
obligations have no end date nor are Tribal Nations equal to other 
``grant recipients.'' This funding is a critical part of the United 
States fulfilling its ongoing trust and treaty obligations. We have 
paid it forward with the lives of our Ancestors, our land and our 
natural resources; and this debt to us, to Indian Country, is ongoing 
and does not go away.
    While there is merit to ensuring that any unexpended funding should 
be accounted for and redistributed, this should not be at the expense 
of a Tribe who has been sent funding they are entitled to only to be 
ordered to spend those funds in accordance with an arbitrary timeline 
imposed upon them by the Federal government. Self-Determination is 
self-explanatory--Tribes get to decide how and when to spend their 
funding. The single annual audit should be sufficient to ensure that 
expenditures are consistent with its intended authorization. In the 
same manner that aid to foreign countries does not require this type of 
reporting and oversight nor should burdensome reporting and oversight 
be imposed upon Tribal Nation for repayment of a debt owed to us.
    As we consider the future of Tribal Self-Determination, we must 
remain steadfast in our commitment to upholding the principles 
enshrined in the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance 
Act. By fostering collaboration, accountability, and mutual respect 
between Tribal Nations and the Federal government, we can continue to 
advance the cause of Indigenous sovereignty and self-governance.
    In conclusion, both Title I and Title IV ISDEEA agreements are 
critical towards ensuring that Tribal Nations have the tools and 
resources necessary to chart their own course toward prosperity and 
self-sufficiency.
    Thank you for your attention to this critical issue. I stand ready 
to assist in any way possible as we work together to strengthen Tribal 
Sovereignty and Self-Determination.

                                 ______
                                 

  Questions Submitted for the Record to Hon. Cheryl Andrews-Maltais, 
            Chairwoman, Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head Aquinnah

            Questions Submitted by Representative Westerman

    Question 1. In your testimony, you mentioned the importance of 
flexibility given to tribes participating in a self-governance compact.

    1a) Could you further expand on your tribe's experiences with this 
level of flexibility and autonomy and how it has overall improved 
tribal members experience with programs?

    Answer. Thank you for the opportunity to provide further testimony 
on this important issue. Due to our very unique situation, we opted 
into Self-Governance on both the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the 
Indian Health Services (IHS) sides. Deciding to enter into Self-
Governance Compacting has made a significant difference in how we are 
able to better meet the needs of my Tribal Community.
    By way of background, our Tribe is small with a current Tribal 
population numbering about 1500 enrolled Tribal Member/Citizens. 
Because our Tribal offices and Aquinnah Homelands are on the island of 
Noepe (aka Martha's Vineyard), it has created a very unique set of 
challenges. The island is a world-wide tourist destination and has 
attracted wealthy and famous people from all sectors, including 
Presidents since President Grant. With so much notoriety focused on our 
island homelands, by the 1970s more and more notable celebrities came 
to the island to build summer, 2nd or 3rd homes. This influx of wealthy 
and notable people moving to the island forever changed the nature, 
demand for land and the characteristics of the island. Not having legal 
counsel or being accustomed to the court system, many of our Tribal 
Member/Citizens were swindled out of their lands, or their lands were 
taken for back-taxes, or portions sold of land just to make ends meet. 
Additionally, there was little opportunity for professional or gainful 
year-round employment and limited education opportunities, so many of 
our Tribal Members/Citizens were forced to move to the other end of the 
island, or off the island all together.
    The attrition of our Tribal Member/Citizens having to move off the 
island just to make ends meet continues to this day at an alarming 
rate. Due to the astronomically high cost of living, the lack of 
available, never mind affordable, housing and the lack of many 
meaningful year-round employment opportunities; only about 25% of our 
Tribal Member/Citizens live on the island. The remaining 75% of our 
Tribal Member/Citizens live on the mainland, with the highest 
concentrations living in the northeast and New England, with 
significant numbers remaining in Massachusetts, Rhode Island and 
Connecticut. The balance of our Tribal Member/Citizens live in the rest 
of United States and around the world.
    Prior to Self-Governance, the ability to serve my Tribal Community 
was extremely challenging because most Indian Polices under both the 
BIA and IHS are far too restrictive. Even now, most Indian Policies 
written to provide essential services to Tribal Member/Citizens are 
still predicated on the old failed Indian Policies and an antiquated 
reservation system, which in most cases has never fit Tribes in the 
east, and hasn't fit the rest of Indian Country in general since the 
Allotment and Relocation eras. Additionally, as Tribal Nations grew and 
rebuilt their economies, there was a need to expand into areas outside 
of the proverbial ``reservations'' in order to accommodate our growing 
populations, and for Tribal Member/Citizens to find educational 
opportunities and or meaningful employment outside the confines of the 
reservations and often outside their local areas.
    In our case, while the funding is still woefully inadequate, the 
flexibilities contained within the Self-Governance amendment option 
provided us with the ability to re-design programs such as our Social 
Services, and roll up other associated programs, services and function 
activities (PSFAs) funding to create services that could reach a 
greater amount of our People. While many of our People still lived in 
our Ancestral Wampanoag Homelands, the majority did not live on the 
island. The old policies were extremely restrictive of who and how you 
could serve your People, incorrectly interpreted our service area to 
restricting us to providing services only to those Tribal Member/
Citizens who lived in a limited geographical area, and used 
inapplicable income thresholds for eligibility. This disparity in 
access to services created great dissention and disharmony in our 
Tribal Community, because it was inconsistent with our culture and 
traditions of equality for all. Under Self-Governance, we were able to 
expand our service areas to include more of our eligible Tribal Member/
Citizens to receive critical and necessary support services.
    The old policies also required an inordinate amount of reporting 
and limited access to funding. This situation created administrative 
burdens and cash-flow issues, which negatively affected timely payments 
to vendors, and the draw-down process was complicated and 
overburdensome. Although the Federal Government has not provided the 
prompt full payment for our Self-Governane Compacts by the beginning of 
the fiscal year, as required by the statute, it's far better than 
regular 638 contracting or direct services. Not having to receive our 
funding in quarterly installments, after having to report on all 
expenditures first, has made planning more effective and vendor 
payments far more timely and streamlined.
    Under Self-Governance ``lump-sum'' payments we could maximize our 
funding by combining the funding line items and re-allocate the funding 
to recreate more effective support for our Tribal Member/Citizens.

    Question 2. Several witness statements mentioned the Department of 
the Interior's lack of timeliness to distribute program funds under 
self-governance compacts.

    2a) Could you further elaborate on how this delay directly impacts 
tribes?

    Answer. Funding delays have had serious impacts on Tribal 
Governments. Tribal Governments, unlike other government 
instrumentalities, do not have a tax base. Additionally, like my Tribe, 
most Tribal Governments are totally reliant on the program funding to 
administer necessary programs and services. When Tribal Governments are 
not supplemented by other funding, the failure of the Department of the 
Interior to get the funding to Tribal Governments can create Tribal 
Government shutdowns. Not only do these delays harm our Tribal Member/
Citizens who rely on the necessary services the Tribal Government 
provides on behalf of the United States, it impacts employees who may 
have to be laid-off, affecting their lives and livelihood, impacting 
employee retention by causing them to potentially seek other 
employment; further injuring the Tribal Member/Citizens. It also 
affects the Tribal Government's ability to timely pay its vendors, 
creating a negative impact on Tribal Government's ability to secure 
vendors for goods and services. And when it comes to paying on behalf 
of or re-imbursing Tribal Member/Citizens for their financial outlays, 
this can affect the Tribal Member/Citizen's credit ratings because the 
bills that were guaranteed by us are sent to collection agencies.

    2b) Could you further elaborate on how any funding delays have 
specifically impacted your tribe's self-governance programs?

    Answer. The uncertainty of funding and/or timely funding creates 
unnecessary stress on the part of the Tribal Government and erodes the 
trust that we have with our Tribal Member/Citizens, our employees and 
our vendors. We've had to develop plans for how to continue to support 
the Tribal Community with the possibility of limited to no staff, no 
funding to pay bills or obligations and the potential going in to the 
limited reserves that we have, which were obligated to other 
initiatives.

    Question 3. Where could Congress legislate regarding the 638 
compacting process that would improve the 638 negotiations?

    3a) And what regulatory changes, if any, would you suggest to the 
Department of the Interior to improve the 638 compact negotiation 
process?

    Answer. Congress could move the funding for Tribal Governments from 
discretionary to mandatory in appropriations. The United States trust 
and treaty obligations to Tribal Governments should not be at the 
discretion of individual Congresses. As previously stated, Tribes have 
paid it forward with the lives of our Ancestors, our land and our 
natural resources. Mandatory and advanced funding for Tribes would help 
to better meet the needs of the Tribes, and better fulfill the 
obligation of the United States to our Tribal Governments. Full and 
mandatory funding for Tribes is a must as well. More information is 
contained in the Quiet Crisis and Broken Promises Reports. For Tribal 
Governments, the only human condition housed within the Department of 
the Interior (DOI), it's disrespectful to the Peoples and sacrifices 
that we have made, to have to compete with the limited dollars in the 
DOI Budget. This is not honoring the promises made to us for peace and/
or in exchange of our lands and natural resources. The Department of 
the Interior generates billions of dollars of revenue for the United 
States from Indian Lands (and resources). Congress can alleviate much 
of the uncertainty by changing the way they fund Tribal Nations (Indian 
Country).
    Congress could also fix how Indian Country is funded across the 
Federal Family. Tribal Governments are political entities, each 
entitled to adequate funding to rebuild our Communities and our 
economies which, under Federal Policies, were systematically dismantled 
to eliminate us from existence. Tribes should not be treated as non-
profits or states to compete against each other and those entities for 
the funding to rebuild our Communities and economies under a grant 
structure.
    Instead, Congress should look to a weighted formula-based funding 
structure that will provide all Tribal Governments, listed on the 
Secretary's List, with annual appropriations to run our governments and 
rebuild our Communities and economies. Each formula must have minimums 
and caps, and a set aside for extenuating circumstances. For example, 
if the funding is for infrastructure, the funding should have 50% 
equally allocated to each Tribe. Then weighted by 30% allocation based 
upon Tribal Government land base holdings. Finally retaining 15% to be 
allocated by population, with the remaining 5% for Tribal Governments 
with extra high costs of goods and services, and/or extra-large 
populations and or extra-large land holdings. A similar formula 
breakdown could be if the funding was for direct services to 
individuals, the weight would be similar with the 50% equally divided, 
however the 30% weighted allocation area would be based upon 
population, then land holdings at 15% with the retained amount of 5% 
for extra-high cost of goods and services, extra-high populations and 
extra-large land bases.
    Then if Congress was to look across the entire federal system of 
grants to see where funding has been set aside for Tribal Governments, 
or where Tribal Governments are eligible to receive funding, then 
pooled it into the general-purpose areas, there would be far more 
funding to offer. By pooling all of the general-purpose area funding 
across the federal family into, a weighted formula, under a Self-
Governance model. Then all Tribal Governments can begin to 
appropriately design and plan their programs and services, with funding 
to sustain the programs and services so there isn't any uncertainty of 
whether or not the Tribe will be ``awarded'' funding that we are all 
entitled to, and each Tribal Government can design the programs and 
services to better meet it's unique and individual needs to service its 
People and rebuild its Communities and economies as they determine.
    Tribal Governments should never have a cost share for any federal 
funding. And, Tribal Governments should not be wasting our very limited 
and valuable human and financial resources, on writing grants for which 
we may never receive, and/or reporting on the funding that we do 
receive. No financial aid to other Sovereigns for assistance is 
conditioned the way funding to Tribal Governments is. And no other 
Sovereign has the special relationship that Tribal Governments have 
with the United States, nor is any other Sovereign owed the debt that 
Sovereign Tribal Nations are. We provide a single audit which should 
suffice to verify that Tribal Nations are expending our funding 
consistent with its intended purposes.

    Question 4. Has the issue of inherent federal functions impacted 
what programs and/or functions your tribe was able to include in your 
638 compact?

    4a) If yes, what was the function and/or program that was deemed an 
inherently federal function?

    4b) b. And are you aware of any other tribes that were able to 
compact that function and/or program?

    Answer. So far, we have not had the issue of being denied the 
opportunity to assume the federal functions that we have requested. 
However, that is probably because we haven't re-negotiated our Compact 
in several years. I am aware of some Tribes that have had issues with 
attempting to assume certain functions.

Additional Recommendations for Congress to consider:

    All Legislation should have very specific language that states the 
statute it is applicable to, and includes all federally Recognized 
Tribal Governments listed on the Secretary's list, and that the 
legislation repeals any other provision of law contrary to the full 
application of this statute to all federally Recognized Tribal Nations.

    Re-envision the Federal Government's Relationship with Tribal 
Nations, to review all funding across the federal family for allocation 
and weighted formula application.

    To stop writing legislation that treats Tribal Governments as non-
profits or states, requiring sovereign Tribal Nations to receive the 
United States funding obligation in the form of grants, compete against 
each other for funding, have to come up with additional funding as a 
``match'' and/or be required to report on funding expenditures beyond 
the single audit requirement.

    Provide a Self-Governance model option for as many Tribal 
Governments who determine they have the capacity to customize their 
programs and services as they are able to, and or see fit.

    Legislate for Tribal Government Self-Governance across the board in 
all cabinets and departments. Pool funds from all cabinets/bureaus into 
a general-purpose areas for weighted formula distributions, with 
weighted formula percentages determined by purpose areas (similar to 
the ARPRA funds 50% equally split), establishing minimum and capped 
amounts, with weighing the balance of the funding as it pertains to 
purpose area and related distributions.

    Thank you again for the opportunity to answer these additional 
questions. I am happy to have a more detailed and in-depth discussion 
on how these ideas can be implemented to improve the distribution of 
federal funds, in the effort to help fulfill the United States Trust 
and Treaty Obligations to our Tribal Governments.

                                 ______
                                 

    Ms. Hageman. I think the witness for her testimony.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Jay Spaan for 5 minutes.

  STATEMENT OF JAY SPAAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SELF-GOVERNANCE 
  COMMUNICATION & EDUCATION TRIBAL CONSORTIUM, TULSA, OKLAHOMA

    Mr. Spaan. Good afternoon, Chair Hageman, Ranking Member 
Leger Fernandez, and members of the Subcommittee. My name is 
Jay Spaan. I am a citizen of the Cherokee Nation and serve as 
the Executive Director for the Self-Governance Communication & 
Education Tribal Consortium. It is a great honor to be here 
today to discuss self-determination and self-governance.
    I am going to start with a few general remarks about these 
authorities and then focus on opportunities for Indian Affairs 
to make the implementation of the authorities more efficient.
    Self-Determination Contracting and Self-Governance 
Compacting are effective mechanisms that tribal governments use 
for delivering Federal programs to their communities.
    Nearly all Tribal Nations administer BIA or IHS programs 
using Self-Determination Contracts and more than 280 Tribal 
Nations have BIA or IHS programs delivered through Self-
Governance Compacts.
    Both self-determination and self-governance are authorized 
in the Indian Self-Determination, Education, and Assistance 
Act, but they are distinct authorities and mechanisms, each 
with its own attributes, benefits, and regulatory framework.
    Self-governance was developed as a tribally-driven 
initiative to improve upon and move beyond the limitations that 
tribes experienced using self-determination.
    As such, self-governance authority provides tribes with 
greater flexibility and more efficiencies. For instance, under 
self-governance, tribes have the authority to redesign Federal 
programs in ways that better address local needs without 
Federal interference.
    Self-determination authority differs in that it requires 
tribes to submit redesign proposals for Federal review and 
approval. Another difference between self-determination and 
self-governance is that they are managed by different entities 
within Indian Affairs.
    BIA administers Self-Determination Contracts while the 
Office of Self-Governance oversees and manages Self-Governance 
Agreements. Both BIA and the Office of Self-Governance are 
overseen by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Indian 
Affairs.
    Fifty years of experience has shown that self-determination 
and self-governance are successful. Tribal Nations have 
demonstrated that local control, local delivery, and knowledge 
of need ultimately result in the delivery of more effective 
programs, greater administrative and governance capacity, 
increased accountability, and more extensive economic benefits.
    While the success of self-governance is undeniable, there 
are opportunities for our Federal partners to make 
implementation of the mechanism within Indian Affairs more 
effective and efficient.
    For example, some Tribal Nations with Self-Governance 
Agreements do not receive all the funding and supporting 
documentation owed to them within the time frames identified in 
their agreements.
    One tribe told us they are still waiting for $13 million 
from Fiscal Years 1922 and 1923 owed for administration of 
programs assumed under a Self-Governance Compact.
    The concern of timely discernment of funds was also raised 
by the GAO in 2019. GAO specifically noted that Interior's 
inability to disperse funds within time frames agreed to in 
self-determination and self-governance agreements can cause an 
undo burden on some tribes and dissuade other tribes from using 
the mechanisms.
    The GAO report indicated that a complex distribution 
process and significant vacancies in key positions are both 
factors that contribute to the delays. In addition, Tribal 
Nations have raised concerns that self-governance has not been 
effectively integrated throughout BIA's structure and 
organization and that key offices do not coordinate as needed 
to effectively fulfill their responsibilities.
    As previously mentioned, the Office of Self-Governance and 
BIA are separate entities under Indian Affairs. In part, this 
organizational arrangement was intended to ensure that BIA's 
initial reluctance to embrace self-governance would not hinder 
the opportunity for Tribal Nations to use it.
    However, for Tribal Nations with Self-Governance 
Agreements, separation without effective collaboration may 
limit access to some BIA offices, programs, and resources.
    Further, due to ineffective collaboration and a lack of 
sharing basic information within the organization, some tribes 
have experienced situations in which they were delayed in 
receiving programmatic funding increases.
    Finally, we continue to hear examples of tribes that 
received conflicting information, depending on the office 
within Indian Affairs that they are speaking with.
    For instance, we recently heard that a tribal government 
was denied a request to compact a BIA program by the Office of 
Self-Governance on the basis that BIA had no funds to support 
the program.
    When the tribe met with BIA directly, the Bureau found 
funding to support the tribe's request. It is unclear why 
tribes continue to receive inconsistent information from the 
Bureau, depending on which office is asked, but it seems 
reasonable that a lack of collaboration and information sharing 
contributes to this problem.
    I respectfully offer the following suggestions for the 
Subcommittee. Indian Affairs should implement comprehensive 
modernization efforts for technology systems, improve data 
management and data sharing capabilities, and streamline 
unnecessarily complex processes.
    Two, Indian Affairs should ensure that self-governance is 
integrated and understood throughout the Department, including 
BIA, so that tribes with Self-Governance Agreements are not 
isolated to only one office.
    Thank you for the opportunity to share information with 
you. Chair Hageman, Vice Chair Leger Fernandez, and members of 
the Subcommittee, this completes my prepared statement. I am 
happy to respond to any questions you may have.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Spaan follows:]
 Prepared Statement of Jay Spaan, Executive Director, Self-Governance 
              Communication & Education Tribal Consortium

    Chair Hageman, Ranking Member Leger Fernandez, and Members of the 
Subcommittee: On behalf of the Self-Governance Communication and 
Education Tribal Consortium (SGCETC), I am pleased to be here today to 
share information and discuss how Tribal Nations use Self-Determination 
and Self-Governance authorities to reassume the administration and 
implementation of Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) programs. SGCETC is a 
non-profit Tribal consortium that supports Tribal Self-Determination 
and Self-Governance by promoting communication, providing education, 
offering technical assistance, facilitating collaboration, and sharing 
resources among all Tribal Nations.
    The enactment of the Indian Self-Determination and Education 
Assistance Act (ISDEAA) of 1975 (Public Law 93-638) marked a pivotal 
shift in how federal resources and programs were delivered to Tribal 
Nations. Before the act, the BIA and the Indian Health Service (IHS) 
administered most federal resources and programs that serve Tribal 
Nations. Passage of the ISDEAA and its subsequent amendments provide 
Tribal Nations with alternative models--Self-Determination contracts 
and Self-Governance compacts--for the delivery of BIA and IHS resources 
and programs to their communities. Essentially, ISDEAA authorizes 
Tribal Nations to better serve their communities by reassuming 
administration and implementation of select federal programs--putting 
Tribal governments in the role previously held by BIA and IHS.
Brief History of Self-Determination Contracting and Self-Governance 
        Compacting at BIA

    In 1975, ISDEAA formally ushered in a new era of Federal Indian 
policy that recognized Tribal sovereignty and the inherent right of 
Tribal Nations to self-govern. ISDEAA authorized Tribal Nations to 
negotiate Self-Determination contracts, enabling them to take over some 
administrative duties previously managed by the BIA.
    Enactment of the ISDEAA was a significant step for Tribal 
sovereignty. Yet, Tribal Nations faced challenges in the late 1970s and 
early 1980s implementing this new authority--largely due to resistance 
from the federal bureaucracy to relinquish control over federal 
programs that BIA was accustomed to administering.
    In 1987, corruption and mismanagement of funds were exposed within 
the BIA. These revelations, coupled with pressure from Tribal leaders 
for BIA to relinquish control of federal programs that Tribal Nations 
administered using Self-Determination contracts, laid the groundwork 
for the strategic evolution of Tribal authority from Self-Determination 
to what is now known as Self-Governance compacting.
    Self-Governance compacting is based on the idea that Tribal 
governments should receive both funding and the authority to design and 
implement federal programs that serve their communities without federal 
interference.
    In 1988, Congress approved ISDEAA amendments to test this concept--
establishing a 5-year demonstration project within the Department of 
the Interior (DOI).\1\ This project expanded Tribal authority over 
programs and functions, reduced federal oversight, and provided greater 
flexibility for Tribal governments to redesign and reallocate resources 
to meet the unique needs of their communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Indian Self-Determination Amendments of 1987, Pub. L. No. 100-
472.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Recognizing the success of Self-Governance authority, Congress made 
it a permanent option for Tribal Nations in 1994.\2\ Recently, Congress 
further amended ISDEAA with the Practical Reforms & Other Goals to 
Reinforce the Effectiveness of Self-Governance & Self-Determination for 
Indian Tribes (PROGRESS) Act of 2020 to streamline the negotiation 
process, enhance administrative efficiencies, and provide more 
flexibility in administering contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Indian Self-Determination Act Amendments of 1994, 108 Stat. 
4250.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Self-Determination and Self-Governance Are Effective Mechanisms for the 
        Delivery of Federal Programs and Resources to Tribal 
        Communities

    Each Tribal Nation voluntarily decides whether, and to what extent, 
to pursue the administration of federal programs using Self-
Determination and/or Self-Governance mechanisms. At least 569 of the 
574 federally recognized Tribal Nations have negotiated a Self-
Determination contract with BIA and/or IHS, and more than 380 Tribal 
Nations negotiated a Self-Governance compact with the BIA and/or IHS to 
assume administration of one or more federal programs.
    Using these mechanisms, Tribal Nations have reassumed the 
administration and implementation of a variety of programs and 
functions from the BIA covering activities, including but not limited 
to: programs to manage natural resources and economic development, 
operate utilities, repair and maintain roads and bridges, inspect oil 
and gas operations, survey lands, manage land records, conduct land 
appraisals, administer social services and child welfare programs, 
administer tribal courts, implement land and water claims settlements, 
administer education and scholarships programs, and provide law 
enforcement services.
    Since its inception nearly 50 years ago, the motivating theory 
behind Self-Determination and Self-Governance has proven true. Tribal 
Nations have amply demonstrated that local control, local delivery, and 
knowledge of need ultimately result in the proliferation of more 
effective programs, greater administrative capacity, increased 
governance capacity and leadership skills, and more extensive economic 
benefits. For instance, the Harvard Project on American Indian Economic 
Development found that beginning in the late 1980s (when ISDEAA was 
amended to include Self-Governance compacts) until 2022, the per capita 
income of the average Tribal citizen living on-Reservation has 
increased by 61% and the proportion of families on-Reservation with 
children living in poverty has been reduced from 47.3% to 23.5%.\3\ In 
addition, in 2022, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) 
identified the use of Self-Determination contracts and Self-Governance 
compacts as a best practice for federal agencies to distribute funds 
intended for Tribal Nations and their citizens quickly. GAO also noted 
that using these mechanisms mitigates administrative burdens for both 
Tribal governments and federal agencies.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ The Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development, 
American Indian Self-Determination Through Self-Governance: The Only 
Policy That Has Ever Worked, Statement to The Commission on Native 
Children by Joseph P. Kalt (December 15, 2022).
    \4\ U.S. Government Accountability Office, COVID-19 RELIEF FUNDS: 
Lessons Learned Could Improve Future Distribution of Federal Emergency 
Relief to Tribal Recipients, GAO-23-105473 (Washington, D.C.: December 
2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Self-Governance compacting provides flexibility for Tribal Nations 
to use federal funds more effectively and efficiently by (1) 
redesigning programs to meet local priorities, (2) integrating related 
resources to reduce fragmentation at the Tribal government level, and 
(3) providing opportunities to waive some federal agency rules and 
guidance that hinder local solutions. It also reduces administrative 
and reporting burdens while increasing local accountability, allowing 
more focus on program delivery.
Key Differences in Self-Determination and Self-Governance

    Self-Determination (Title I of ISDEAA) and Self-Governance (Title 
IV of ISDEAA) both aim to transfer control over programs, functions, 
services, and activities (PFSAs) from the federal government to Tribal 
governments, allowing more local control and decision-making authority 
over federal resources and decreasing bureaucratic processes. Yet, 
Self-Determination and Self-Governance are each distinct authorities 
and mechanisms. For instance, Self-Governance authority allows Tribal 
Nations to administer and redesign federal programs based on their 
priorities and local needs, free from federal interference. Self-
Determination authority generally requires Tribal governments to submit 
standards and redesign proposals for federal review and approval--
providing the BIA with more control and involvement over implementing 
the resources and programs. The following table developed by the GAO 
compares key attributes of Self-Determination and Self-Governance 
authorities.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5061.001

    .epsAnother significant difference between Self-Determination and 
Self-Governance is that Self-Determination contracts and Self-
Governance compacts are managed by two different organizations within 
Indian Affairs.

     For Self-Determination contracts, BIA negotiates, 
            approves, manages, and monitors the contracts. The funding 
            for Self-Determination contracts also flows through BIA 
            regional offices.

     For Self-Governance compacts, the Office of Self-
            Governance (OSG) has a variety of responsibilities 
            associated with managing Self-Governance agreements, 
            including: determining if a Tribal Nation is eligible to 
            negotiate a compact, participating in negotiations with 
            Tribal governments and BIA programs to identify the amount 
            of funds that will be included in the Self-Governance 
            agreements, processing waivers of BIA regulations, and 
            transferring funds to Tribal Nations with Self-Governance 
            agreements. OSG also monitors Tribal governments' 
            compliance with Single Audit Act requirements and 
            coordinates the collection of budget and performance data 
            from Tribal Nations that have a Self-Governance compact.

    BIA and OSG are both overseen by DOI's Office of the Assistant 
Secretary--Indian Affairs.
Indian Affairs Needs to Take Actions to Help Ensure the Continued 
        Expansion and Success of Self-Determination Contracting and 
        Self-Governance Compacting

    Indian Affairs has taken actions in recent years to streamline some 
BIA operations and reduce administrative burdens. For instance, Indian 
Affairs has worked to improve and reform some outdated or inefficient 
policies and processes, such as its effort to streamline the land 
acquisition, rights-of-way, and business lease application processes. 
However, numerous challenges that Tribal Nations face in working with 
Indian Affairs, including BIA and OSG, indicate that more work is 
needed and must be aimed at empowering Tribal Self-Governance. Indian 
Affairs should ensure its organizational capacity, structure and 
processes promote opportunities for increased Self-Governance.

    Systems and Processes Need to be Modernized and Streamlined to 
Support the Continued Growth of Self-Governance Many Tribal Nations 
have expressed concerns that Indian Affairs' systems and processes are 
outdated and needlessly complex--creating significant challenges and 
inefficiencies for Tribal Nations with Self-Determination and Self-
Governance agreements and hindering the expansion of Self-Governance 
for other Tribal Nations. All administrative aspects associated with 
entering into and functioning under a Self-Governance agreement--from 
initial application, vetting, negotiation, finalization of agreements, 
delivery of funds, provision of payment details, and data collection 
for future year payments--need to be simplified and streamlined for the 
continued success of Self-Governance.

    The following examples highlight the challenges created because of 
outdated and overly complex systems and processes:

     OSG does not ensure that Tribal Nations with Self-
            Governance agreements receive funds within the required 
            time frames. Many Tribal Nations with Self-Governance 
            agreements have expressed concerns about delays in 
            receiving funds and the supporting documentation that were 
            negotiated and agreed upon with DOI. In one example, a 
            Tribal government is still waiting for the Department to 
            provide $13 million owed from FY 2022 and FY 2023 to 
            administer federal programs under a Self-Governance 
            agreement.

     In 2019, GAO reported to Congress that Tribal governments 
            may be dissuaded from using Self-Determination and Self-
            Governance mechanisms due to DOI's inability to provide 
            Tribal Nations with funds to administer federal programs 
            within the time frame specified in Self-Determination and 
            Self-Governance agreements.\5\ The GAO found that when 
            funds are not disbursed in a timely manner, Tribal 
            governments may have to use funds from their general 
            revenue accounts to cover expenses for federal programs or 
            seek other sources, such as loans, to cover program 
            expenses. When a Tribal government must use its funds for 
            the administration of federal programs--even temporarily--
            it can adversely affect it in various ways, including lost 
            opportunities to use Tribal funds for improving the Tribes' 
            economic conditions, reducing other services provided to 
            Tribal communities, and furloughing Tribal government 
            employees. The GAO and Indian Affairs identified several 
            reasons for the delays in distributing funds, including a 
            substantial number of vacancies in key positions, such as 
            Awarding Officials. In addition, the distribution process 
            requires numerous steps and approvals that can bog down the 
            flow of funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ U.S. Government Accountability Office, INDIAN PROGRAMS: 
Interior Should Address Factors Hindering Tribal Administration of 
Federal Programs, GAO-19-87 (Washington, D.C.: January 2019).

     Tribal Nations have expressed concerns that the OSG 
            database, which is intended to provide critical information 
            related to funding does not always have timely information 
            needed to fully account for the purpose of specific funds. 
            Tribal Nations continue to push OSG to update and modernize 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            the system.

     Some Tribal Nations have reported that BIA and OSG are 
            unresponsive to requests for information to negotiate a 
            Self-Governance compact or that simple requests result in 
            overly burdensome processes to obtain information. For 
            example, one Tribal Nation reported that it requested 
            funding information from BIA related to the programs that 
            serve the Tribal Nation--a request that should be simple 
            and straightforward to answer for the BIA. Rather than 
            sending an electronic file with the information, the BIA 
            saved several Word documents on a CD and physically mailed 
            the CD to the Tribal Nation. This outdated process 
            unnecessarily prolonged the process and added 
            administrative burdens for both BIA and the Tribal 
            government.

     In 2019, the GAO reported to Congress that BIA remains 
            reluctant to share vital information needed by Tribal 
            governments to negotiate a Self-Governance agreement. The 
            GAO also found that some information provided to Tribal 
            Nations is inconsistent among BIA regions and noted that 
            BIA often lacks documentation or justification for its 
            determinations that impact Tribal Nation's access to 
            programs and resources for inclusion in Self-Governance 
            agreements.

    Self-Governance Needs to be Better Integrated Throughout Indian 
Affairs and More Coordination is Needed Between OSG and BIA Self-
Governance has not been effectively integrated throughout BIA's 
structure and organization. OSG currently resides under Indian Affairs, 
outside of the BIA. This organizational arrangement was intended to 
ensure that BIA's reluctance to embrace Self-Governance would not 
hinder how Tribal Nations use the authority. However, it may have also 
limited access to some BIA offices, programs, and resources for Tribal 
Nations with Self-Governance compacts and provided some BIA offices 
with an excuse to neglect their duties that should extend to all Tribal 
Nations--regardless of whether the Tribal government has a Self-
Governance agreement.

    The following examples highlight the challenges created due to the 
lack of integration of Self-Governance across Indian Affairs and the 
lack of coordination between BIA and OSG:

     Some Tribal Nations with Self-Governance agreements faced 
            delays receiving programmatic increases in base budgets 
            because of the lack of integration and coordination between 
            OSG and BIA. For instance, the DOI Inspector General 
            reported in 2018 that poor communication between BIA and 
            OSG resulted in some Tribal Nations missing out on funding 
            intended for them for nearly two years.\6\ It is unclear 
            why BIA and OSG do not share basic information, but Tribal 
            Nations continue to raise concerns that the lack of 
            coordination hinders effective implementation of Self-
            Governance authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of the Interior, 
Indian Affairs Offices' Poor Recordkeeping and Coordination Threaten 
Impact of Tiwahe Initiative, Report No: 2017-ER-018 (Washington, D.C.: 
September 2018).

     Some Tribal Nations with Self-Governance agreements do not 
            receive notifications from BIA on funding opportunities or 
            data requests because of their status as a ``Self-
            Governance Tribe.'' As a result, Tribal Nations with Self-
            Governance agreements could miss out on funding 
            opportunities and often learn of data requests with limited 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            time to compile and submit information.

     Some Tribal Nations have stated that BIA officials have 
            discouraged them from negotiating a Self-Governance 
            agreement. For instance, Tribal officials have been told 
            BIA would no longer provide support if they entered into a 
            Self-Governance agreement even though the statute clearly 
            requires the agency to provide technical assistance and 
            perform any PSFAs left with the BIA. In another instance, 
            Tribal officials have been encouraged by Indian Affairs 
            officials to pursue alternative mechanisms over Self-
            Governance--mechanisms which provide federal agencies with 
            more control when compared to Self-Governance.

     One Tribal Nation told SGCETC that OSG denied a request to 
            compact a BIA program stating that BIA had no available 
            funds. However, when the Tribal Nation met with BIA 
            directly, BIA staff identified funding for the program that 
            could be incorporated into the Self-Governance compact.

    SGCETC offers the following suggestions for the Subcommittee's 
consideration:

     Congress could direct Indian Affairs to identify and 
            implement comprehensive modernization efforts for 
            technology systems, improve data management and sharing 
            capabilities, and streamline unnecessarily complex 
            processes associated with Self-Determination and Self-
            Governance.

     Congress could direct Indian Affairs to ensure that Self-
            Governance is integrated and understood throughout the 
            Department, including BIA, so that Self-Governance is not 
            isolated.

    SGCETC appreciates the opportunity to share information on Self-
Determination and Self-Governance with the Committee. Chair Hageman, 
Ranking Member Leger Fernandez, and Members of the Subcommittee, this 
completes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to respond to any 
questions that you may have.

                                 ______
                                 

    Questions Submitted for the Record to Mr. Jay Spaan, Executive 
 Director, Self-Governance Communication & Education Tribal Consortium

            Questions Submitted by Representative Westerman

    Question 1. Please expand on your answer during the hearing about 
the 638 closeout process and self-governance compacts.

    Answer. Self-Governance compacts do not have a term. These 
documents redefine the relationship between the agency and the Tribal 
Nation under a Self-Governance model. As such, a closeout process is 
not needed. The funding agreements associated with a Self-Governance 
compact identify the specific PSFAs a Tribe is assuming and the 
associated Tribal shares for the program.

    1a) What nuances should this committee be aware of regarding a 638 
closeout process?

    Answer. Tribal Nations do have the option to include one-time 
funds, such as for a construction project, in their agreements. These 
funds often have unique reporting requirements outside of the Single 
Audit Act reporting requirements that require more extensive reporting 
and oversight. These projects may be closed out by a BIA inspection to 
certify completion and through submission of additional reports to the 
agency.

    1b) Do annual funding agreements have a closeout process, and if 
so, are there ways to improve it?

    Answer. Funding agreements also do not have a term but, at the 
request of a Tribe, can be renegotiated if the Tribe wants to assume 
administration for additional PSFAs or to return PSFAs to the federal 
agencies. Tribal shares would be renegotiated at that time. It is 
important to note that PSFAs are not considered one-time funds. These 
are the base funds needed for the long-term implementation of federal 
programs and services and the funds do not expire under a Self-
Governance agreement.

    Question 2. Your testimony mentioned the disconnect between the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Office of Self Governance (OSG) 
and the impact it has on self-governance compacts.

    2a) Could you describe instances in which this disconnect has 
affected tribes?

    Answer. Some Tribal Nations with Self-Governance agreements faced 
delays receiving programmatic increases in base budgets because of the 
lack of integration and coordination between OSG and BIA. For instance, 
the DOI Inspector General reported in 2018 that poor communication 
between BIA and OSG resulted in some Tribal Nations missing out on 
funding intended for them for nearly two years. We recently heard that 
BIA faced challenges disbursing programmatic increases for another 
program because they were uncertain about what Tribal Nations assumed 
the program under Self-Governance. In addition, one Tribal Nation told 
SGCETC that OSG denied a request to compact a BIA program stating that 
BIA had no available funds. However, when the Tribal Nation met with 
BIA directly, BIA staff identified funding for the program that could 
be incorporated into the Self-Governance compact. We are thankful that 
the Tribe did not just take the initial response from OSG as the final 
answer, but we believe this is an example of the lack of coordination 
between BIA and OSG.

    2b) Are there any suggestions for better communication between BIA 
and the OSG?

    Answer. It is unclear why communication between BIA and the OSG 
remains problematic but both offices fall directly under the Assistant 
Secretary--Indian Affairs.

    At the Indian Health Service, the Office of Tribal Self-Governance 
is more integrated into the overall IHS structure. This approach has 
allowed more staff knowledge and awareness across the agency about 
Self-Governance and has also allowed for IHS to use resources in a 
manner that reflect a changing environment as more and more Tribal 
Nations assume programs under Self-Governance agreements.

    Question 3. Please provide further details regarding the 
unresponsiveness of BIA and the OSG to information requests from 
tribes.

    Answer. We continue to hear examples from Tribal Nations that they 
do not receive critical information on programmatic funding and tribal 
shares from BIA in a timely manner. This information is critical for a 
Tribe to determine if assuming administration under Self-Governance is 
feasible. This information comes directly from BIA Regions though OSG 
may serve as a liaison in efforts to obtain the information. As 
mentioned in the written testimony, one Tribal Nation reported that it 
requested funding information from BIA related to the programs that 
serve the Tribal Nation--a request that should be simple and 
straightforward to answer for the BIA. Rather than sending an 
electronic file with the information, the BIA saved several Word 
documents on a CD and physically mailed the CD to the Tribal Nation. 
This outdated process unnecessarily prolonged the process and added 
administrative burdens for both BIA and the Tribal government.

    In addition, some Tribal Nations with Self-Governance agreements do 
not receive notifications from BIA on funding opportunities or data 
requests because of their status as a ``Self-Governance Tribe.'' As a 
result, Tribal Nations with Self-Governance agreements could miss out 
on funding opportunities and often learn of data requests with limited 
time to compile and submit information.

    3a) Do you think the good faith negotiation requirement in the 
PROGRESS Act will improve this?

    Answer. We are optimistic that full implementation of the PROGRESS 
Act and completion of the rulemaking process will provide significant 
benefits for Tribal Nations. For instance, the final offer requirement 
should provide great assistance to Tribal Nations in addressing lengthy 
agency delays related to review of Self-Governance agreements. However, 
we are hesitant to speculate whether implementation of the PROGRESS Act 
will help address all challenges associated with timely responses and 
sharing of information.

    Question 4. What do you think are the two to three most important 
technology and data management systems within DOI that need to be 
updated first in order to improve the processes associated with 638 
contracts and compacts?

    Answer. The GAO previously reported that the Department of the 
Interior's financial data management system is not equipped for the 
unique aspects of Self-Determination Contracts and Self-Governance 
Compacts. As a result, DOI officials stated that properly tracking and 
monitoring the timeliness of payments is difficult. The timely 
distribution of funds is a significant concern for Tribal Nations. When 
funds are not disbursed in a timely manner, Tribal governments may have 
to use funds from their general revenue accounts to cover expenses for 
federal programs or seek other sources, such as loans, to cover program 
expenses. When a Tribal government must use its funds for the 
administration of federal programs--even temporarily--it can adversely 
affect it in various ways, including lost opportunities to use Tribal 
funds for improving the Tribes' economic conditions, reducing other 
services provided to Tribal communities, and furloughing Tribal 
government employees. We strongly encourage DOI to initiate Tribal 
Consultation to identify the most important technology and data 
management systems that need to be updated first but believe that DOI's 
own acknowledgement that its financial data management system is not 
equipped for Self-Determination and Self-Governance makes it an ideal 
candidate for upgrades.

                                 ______
                                 

    Ms. Hageman. I thank the witness for his testimony. And one 
of the things that I very much appreciate is that you brought 
actual solutions and ideas of how you see things that can be 
fixed and addressed in addressing this program.
    So, I appreciate the testimony from all five of you.
    The Chair will now recognize Members for 5 minutes of 
questioning, beginning with myself.
    Mr. Newland, in your testimony, you mentioned that BIA was 
working to resolve the three recommendations to resolve unspent 
funds and create better processes for closing out funds.
    Can you explain how the BIA has and is implementing further 
changes and how many closeouts have happened since the report 
was actually released?
    Mr. Newland. Thank you for the question, Madam Chair. I can 
report that, by the end of this Fiscal Year, we anticipate 
having 141 of the 183 listed contracts in the IG report 
effectively closed out and we are working with the tribes for 
those other 42 agreements to make sure that we are able to 
continue to support their efforts to spend down those funds.
    With respect to the other two recommendations in the IG's 
report, we are working to create the information and IT systems 
that were included in those recommendations and estimate that 
we will complete testing on that system by the end of this 
Fiscal Year.
    On the third recommendation, we are targeting the end of 
the calendar year for closing out that recommendation.
    Ms. Hageman. Thank you. Could you also please elaborate on 
your testimony regarding the Progress Act's Negotiated 
Rulemaking Committee. And, specifically, what I would like you 
to discuss is what major obstacles are left to discuss and is 
the Committee on track to meet their final rule proposal 
extended deadline of December 21 of this year?
    Mr. Newland. Thank you, Madam Chair. We are effectively or 
essentially at the end stage of the negotiated rulemaking where 
the Committee meets with Federal officials to hash out the 
language of the rule.
    What is left to do is finish drafting the text of the rule 
and propose it and engage in consultation. And we do expect to 
complete that work by the statutory deadline.
    Ms. Hageman. OK. Thank you.
    I would also like to question President Deborah Dotson. 
President Dotson, you provided testimony regarding reporting 
windows and how those windows do not always align with tribal 
program years.
    Why doesn't each tribe just operate through programs on a 
Federal Fiscal Year and is there a hardship created with 
realigning programs with the Federal Fiscal Year?
    Ms. Dotson. Thank you, Madam Chair for your question.
    We have the right to set our programs and our Fiscal Years 
when we would like to, which best serves our people.
    And if we were to put our Fiscal Years with the 
Government's Fiscal Year, we could lose funding if we did that. 
We want to have the maximum funding to serve our people.
    Ms. Hageman. OK. And for President Harvier, your testimony 
mentions the impact of assuming functions of the Land, Title, 
and Records Office. How have the improvements you have made 
helped your tribe integrate with other communities in the 
Phoenix Metro area?
    Mr. Harvier. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    I think for the previous leadership of our community for 
many years, and because of our location around the metropolitan 
area and the cities that surround our community, we have always 
tried to have good relationship with their surrounding cities 
and currently, we have agreements, for example, with solid 
wastewater agreements with our surrounding cities.
    So, being a self-governance tribe, it makes it easier for 
us because we have control over what we are doing on our side 
in working with the cities. For example, our law enforcement.
    Currently, our law enforcement is cross deputized and it is 
always a concern in Indian Country when outside law enforcement 
come into Indian Country. I think our relationship, because of 
our self-governance compact and having our law enforcement 
cross deputized, there is that discussion and that relationship 
that we have, because of self-governance, that we are able to 
work with the surrounding cities.
    Ms. Hageman. That is all very good. Thank you.
    And just another question is, how has your ability to 
shorten bureaucratic times for documentation, that would 
usually take the BIA so much longer, impacted economic 
development on the reservation?
    Mr. Harvier. Well, that was a big plus for us in taking the 
Land, Records, and Titles over as a community. With the 
development that happens within our community, I think 
developers that are wanting to develop and have a site chosen, 
they want to be able to move things along.
    So, having the Land, Records, and Titles in house and the 
time frames that we meet, I think it assures the developers 
that a project can start on time and things can start moving, 
instead of having to wait to go through the process of waiting 
months.
    So, it has been a big benefit to the community for economic 
development in our community.
    Ms. Hageman. It sounds like it has benefited everyone to be 
able to do this, to process these documents on a much faster 
basis. So, thank you for that.
    I am now going to recognize the other members of the 
Committee and I will recognize Ms. Leger Fernandez for 5 
minutes of questions.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
    And thank you, President Harvier, for pointing out how much 
your tribe actually provides to carry out the functions that 
the Federal Government, in its trust responsibility, is 
supposed to be doing.
    It is more than a two-to-one ratio, right? I am curious, 
and I would like to ask President Dotson and Chair Andrew-
Maltais whether you also provide tribal funds to meet these 
obligations for the compacting contracting that you do?
    And then a second one is, whether you also compact contract 
IHS functions, or is it just all BIA, BIE?
    Ms. Dotson. Thank you for the question. Yes, we provide 
funding to initiate programs that we have a short fall in and 
we do not contract for IHS.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Chairwoman?
    Ms. Andrews-Maltais. Thank you for the question.
    We are actually a self-governance on both the Indian Health 
Services as well as BIA for about 20 years. And because the 
funding is so inadequate, we wind up by having to, the 
terminology now is called braiding, but we use grants to 
supplement the programs and services that we are able to 
provide for our community members because without the ability 
to redesign, we wouldn't be able to administer the programs and 
the services in the way that they need to to meet our people's 
needs.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Right. The flexibility that compacting 
provides and the flexibility within the IHS system, in terms of 
the multiple sources of revenue really makes a difference.
    Ms. Andrews-Maltais. Absolutely.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. And I think that is the point that was 
made in Secretary Newland's testimony about the benefits of the 
leasing program.
    President Harvier, do you also compact IHS?
    Mr. Harvier. We just built a new health facility in our 
community and right now, I guess, what we are going through is 
a process in working with more on the IHS side in building the 
community, taking that project over as a self-governance 
project.
    The situation that we faced after the project was 
completed, it is the start-up costs that we occurred as a 
community and now, trying to get those funds reimbursed. Those 
are some of the issues that we face and I will just say, I 
think we have been blessed as a community to be able to add 
more funding to programs that are so necessary for our members, 
but there are a lot of tribes out there that don't have that 
opportunity and that is where, to me, as a tribe, we are not 
really being able to service our members the way we would like 
to and how important that funding is to the tribes and getting 
it out in a proper time.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. And to Secretary Newland, I have a 
couple of questions. One is, given the inability of smaller 
tribes, although it is really amazing the number you gave in 
your testimony is that $887 million of the $892 million of our 
American Rescue Plan you actually were contracting and 
compacting?
    That is really great and thank you for doing that. I think 
that is important. But I would like you to address two things. 
One is, what we might do to think about how we help smaller 
tribes who do not have a supplemental source of funding for 
these programs to compact and contract more?
    And two, we heard testimony from several witnesses about 
the timeliness of actually getting the money. Some suggested 
that Congress should actually put it into law. Well, it is kind 
of already in the law.
    So, can you tell me what you are doing to make sure that 
that is there so we don't, I mean, how do we get the money to 
the tribes quickly? What are you doing to make sure that 
happens?
    Mr. Newland. Thank you, Ranking Member.
    Both of your questions are actually related to your first 
observation about moving the Rescue Plan money through Public 
Law 638 contracts.
    The team that we have, in Indian Affairs, at the 
Department, when they have the resources to do the work, they 
are able to move this money out and move it quickly.
    The challenge with getting money out in a timely manner and 
then meeting the close-out obligations on the backend is really 
a matter of resources, which has been reflected in the 
Department's budget requests the past several years.
    One of the things that we can do to move this money more 
quickly is make sure we have the awarding officials within the 
BIA who are capable of handling the volume on both ends.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Yes. You had pointed out that you had 
the same staff when you started as you have now.
    OK. Thank you. With that, my time is expired, and I yield 
back.
    Ms. Hageman. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mrs. 
Radewagen for 5 minutes of questioning.
    Mrs. Radewagen. Thank you, Chairwoman Hageman.
    Mr. Spaan, in Secretary Newland's testimony, he mentioned 
that a Self-Governance Compact has not been closed out in the 
history of the program. Is there a reason to include a close-
out process for 638 compacts or is that a question that should 
be left to negotiation between the Secretary and tribes?
    Mr. Spaan. Thank you very much for that question.
    Compacts are different then Self-Determination Contracts. 
Compacts, whenever they are negotiated, do not have a term. The 
Compacts really set the stage for re-establishing a 
relationship between the tribe and the Federal Government.
    So, whenever those get initiated, they are not active for a 
certain amount of time. What then happens is there are funding 
agreements that get negotiated where individual Program 
Services Function Activities get negotiated and put into that 
funding agreement.
    That funding agreement is renegotiated periodically with 
the tribe and the Federal Government coming together. So, if 
there are any changes that are needed, that happens within the 
funding agreement during the negotiation process.
    I think with the kind of close-out, I think there is also a 
difference between project versus program based. So, I think 
that project based is something that does have a lot of 
reporting requirements and sort of a close out.
    Mrs. Radewagen. And President Deborah Dotson, in your 
testimony, you mentioned that you entered into a Self-
Governance Compact by transferring items previously operated 
under Self-Determination Contracts. How did your tribe 
determine that a Self-Governance Compact would serve you better 
and would you suggest any improvements for the negotiation 
process for Self-Governance Compacts?
    Ms. Dotson. Thank you for the question.
    I was not in the office at the time when we negotiated our 
Self-Governance Compact, however, it gives us more flexibility 
to move funding around so that we can fund more programs.
    And the improvement I would suggest is that adequate 
staffing would help. It would help with getting the funding out 
to us.
    Mrs. Radewagen. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Ms. Hageman. Well, I want to, again, thank the witnesses 
for your valuable testimony and the Members for their 
questions.
    For those of you who have been watching this Subcommittee 
over the last year, I believe that it is apparent that the 
things that we have really been focusing on have been economic 
development for our tribes. Improving the economic conditions 
and giving them the opportunity to make decisions that are 
going to be in the best interest of their members.
    It has been one of my priorities and one of my agendas to 
ensure that we are recognizing and acknowledging the 
sovereignty and autonomy of these Tribal Nations so that you 
can do what is in the best interest, not only in the short term 
but in the long term.
    Having these kinds of hearings helps us to understand what 
the current legislative landscape looks like, how we can 
streamline it, how we can make it better, and what we can do 
for all of our tribal members.
    So, I appreciate the fact that you are willing to travel to 
Washington, DC. I know it is not easy to get here. I have to 
come here from Wyoming and go through Denver. I have to drive 
100 miles just to even catch the plane, but we very much 
appreciate you coming here.
    We don't always have a full array of folks coming here to 
question. I had four hearings today myself. We have so many 
things going on, but I do want you to understand that your 
testimony is extremely important to us and helps us to be 
better at drafting legislation that is, again, in the long 
term, going to be able to help you with your management and the 
decisions that you are making for your members.
    Again, thank you very much for being here. I want to state 
that 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 questions to the Subcommittee Clerk by 5 p.m. on Monday, 
March 11, 2024. The hearing record will be held open for 10 
business days for these responses.
    If there is no further business, without objection, the 
Subcommittee stands adjourned. Thank you.

    [Whereupon, at 3:19 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                 [all]