[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 4524, H.R. 4748, H.R. 6368,
AND H.R. 6443
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INDIAN AND INSULAR AFFAIRS
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Tuesday, December 5, 2023
__________
Serial No. 118-81
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[GRAPHIC(S) 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
55-666 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 Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI
Tom McClintock, CA Jared Huffman, CA
Paul Gosar, AZ Ruben Gallego, AZ
Garret Graves, LA Joe Neguse, CO
Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS Mike Levin, CA
Doug LaMalfa, CA Katie Porter, CA
Daniel Webster, FL Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR Melanie A. Stansbury, NM
Russ Fulcher, ID Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
Pete Stauber, MN Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, NY
John R. Curtis, UT Kevin Mullin, CA
Tom Tiffany, WI Val T. Hoyle, OR
Jerry Carl, AL Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
Matt Rosendale, MT Seth Magaziner, RI
Lauren Boebert, CO Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
Cliff Bentz, OR Ed Case, HI
Jen Kiggans, VA Debbie Dingell, MI
Jim Moylan, GU Susie Lee, NV
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 Tuesday, December 5, 2023........................ 1
Statement of Members:
Hageman, Hon. Harriet M., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Wyoming....................................... 2
Leger Fernandez, Hon. Teresa, a Representative in Congress
from the State of New Mexico............................... 4
Panel I:
.............................................................
Newhouse, Hon. Dan, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Washington........................................ 5
Peltola, Hon. Mary Sattler, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Alaska........................................ 6
Issa, Hon. Darrell, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 7
LaMalfa, Hon. Doug, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 39
Statement of Witnesses:
Panel II:
Freihage, Jason, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Management,
Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior,
Washington, DC............................................. 9
Prepared statement of.................................... 11
Questions submitted for the record....................... 12
French, Chris, Deputy Chief, U.S. Forest Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.................. 12
Prepared statement of.................................... 13
Erickson, Hon. Jarred-Michael, Chairman, Confederate Tribes
of the Colville Reservation, Nespelem, Washington.......... 15
Prepared statement of.................................... 16
Pinto, Hon. Erica M., Chairwoman, Jamul Indian Village,
Jamul, California.......................................... 18
Prepared statement of.................................... 20
Rinehart, Richard, CEO, Tlingit and Haida Business
Corporation, Juneau, Alaska................................ 23
Prepared statement of.................................... 24
Questions submitted for the record....................... 27
Carlson, Ervin, President, InterTribal Buffalo Council, Rapid
City, South Dakota......................................... 28
Prepared statement of.................................... 29
Questions submitted for the record....................... 33
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
Bureau of Land Management, Statement for the Record on H.R.
4748....................................................... 44
Submissions for the Record by Representative Peltola
The Wilderness Society, Letter to the Committee dated
December 5, 2023 on H.R. 4748.......................... 46
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 4524, TO AMEND THE INDIAN LAW ENFORCEMENT
REFORM ACT TO PROVIDE FOR ADVANCEMENTS IN PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES TO
INDIAN COMMUNITIES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``PARITY FOR TRIBAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT ACT''; H.R. 4748, TO PROVIDE FOR THE RECOGNITION OF CERTAIN
ALASKA NATIVE COMMUNITIES AND THE SETTLEMENT OF CERTAIN CLAIMS UNDER
THE ALASKA NATIVE CLAIMS SETTLEMENT ACT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES,
``UNRECOGNIZED SOUTHEAST ALASKA NATIVE COMMUNITIES RECOGNITION AND
COMPENSATION ACT''; H.R. 6368, TO ASSIST TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS IN THE
MANAGEMENT OF BUFFALO AND BUFFALO HABITAT AND THE REESTABLISHMENT OF
BUFFALO ON INDIAN LAND, ``INDIAN BUFFALO MANAGEMENT ACT''; AND H.R.
6443, TO TAKE CERTAIN LAND IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA INTO TRUST FOR
THE BENEFIT OF THE JAMUL INDIAN VILLAGE OF CALIFORNIA TRIBE, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES, ``JAMUL INDIAN VILLAGE LAND TRANSFER ACT''
----------
Tuesday, December 5, 2023
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Indian and Insular Affairs
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m., in
Room 1324 Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Harriet M.
Hageman [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Hageman, LaMalfa, Gonzalez-Colon;
and Leger Fernandez.
Also present: Representatives Newhouse, Stauber, Issa; and
Peltola.
Ms. Hageman. The Subcommittee on Indian and Insular Affairs
will come to order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized
to declare recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on four
bills: H.R. 4524, H.R. 4748, H.R. 6368, and H.R. 6443. Under
Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at hearings
are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member. I
therefore ask unanimous consent that all other Members' opening
statements be made part of the hearing record if they are
submitted in accordance with Committee Rule 3(o).
Without objection, so ordered.
I ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman from Alaska,
Mrs. Peltola; the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Stauber; the
gentleman from Washington, Mr. Newhouse; and the gentleman from
California, Mr. Issa, be allowed to sit and participate in
today's hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
I will now recognize myself for an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. HARRIET M. HAGEMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING
Ms. Hageman. Today, the Subcommittee is considering four
bills. First, we have H.R. 4524, the Parity for Tribal Law
Enforcement Act. This legislation would allow tribal law
enforcement officers to be considered Federal law enforcement
officers for the purposes of Federal benefits, pensions, tort
claims coverage, and penalties for crimes committed against
them. This would create parity between Federal and tribal law
enforcement officers in these areas and it should help with the
recruitment and retention of tribal law enforcement officers.
As we saw in our previous oversight committee hearing,
recruiting and retaining good law enforcement officers is a
huge concern for tribal police departments. This bill would be
a step towards improving this situation. Everyone deserves to
feel safe in their community, and we will continue to work
towards that goal for all Native communities.
Next is H.R. 4748, the Unrecognized Southeast Alaska Native
Communities Recognition and Compensation Act. This bill would
amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, or ANCSA, to
allow five Alaska Native communities, the Haines, Ketchikan,
Petersburg, Tenakee, and Wrangell to form Alaska Native urban
corporations in Southeast Alaska.
Each urban corporation would be able to select one township
of land equal to 23,040 acres of their historical aboriginal
lands in the Tongass National Forest to own in fee simple. This
is the same acreage that other Alaska Native urban corporations
in Southeast Alaska were allowed to select when ANCSA became
law in 1971.
ANCSA settled the land claims of Alaska Natives through a
$962.5 million settlement payment and roughly 44 million acres
of land, which was divided between almost 200 village
corporations and 12 regional corporations established by the
legislation. The five Alaska Native communities considered in
H.R. 4748 were excluded from this list of Alaska Native
communities allowed to form Alaska Native corporations in
Southeast Alaska. Congress did not include an appeals process
for communities excluded in Southeast Alaska, so only an Act of
Congress can allow these five communities to form their urban
corporations.
The legislation also contains provisions stating the bill
would not affect any land entitlements for previously
established Alaska Native corporations, does not affect the
rights-of-way held by the state of Alaska within the selected
parcels, and provides the Forest Service access to National
Forest system roads until a mutual use agreement is entered
into. Additionally, the parcels to be conveyed would remain
open and available to subsistence uses, non-commercial
recreational hunting and fishing, and other non-commercial
recreational uses with very narrow exceptions.
Next is H.R. 6368, the Indian Buffalo Management Act. This
legislation would create a program within the Department of the
Interior to support tribes and tribal organizations in the
creation and management of their own American Buffalo programs.
These programs have benefited American Indians and Alaska
Natives both economically and culturally.
Historically, Indian tribes use the buffalo for subsistence
purposes for thousands of years, incorporating it into everyday
diets and livelihoods. By the end of the 19th century, however,
buffalo were near extinction. Conservation efforts were enacted
to restore buffalo numbers and the species has had a dramatic
recovery. The Department of the Interior already provides some
funds to tribes and organizations to promote the tribal
management of buffalo. However, there is currently no formal
program within the Department. The funding for this program has
also fluctuated over the years and a formal program may help
with stabilizing funds and provide more oversight.
Last on our agenda is H.R. 6443, the Jamul Indian Village
Transfer Act, what would replace approximately 172.1 acres of
land owned in fee simple by the Jamul Indian Village into trust
for the benefit of the Tribe. Located in San Diego County,
California, the Jamul Indian Village is part of the Kumeyaay
people of Southern California, otherwise known as the Mission
Indians. Despite tracing their history back 12,000 years, the
Jamul Indian Village did not receive Federal recognition until
1981. Since then, the Tribe has slowly gained a land base for
itself.
The Tribe has submitted fee-to-trust applications to the
Department of the Interior with the oldest submitted in August
2015, but these applications have not been finalized. This bill
would place the land in a trust legislatively rather than
continuing to wait on the administrative process. Additionally,
H.R. 6443 would prohibit any Class 2 or Class 3 gaming under
the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act on the parcels that are taken
into trust.
I am hopeful we can all work together to continue to ensure
the bills considered today gain support and move through the
legislative process. Thank you to the witnesses for being here
today. We appreciate you being here in person. We know that you
have traveled quite a distance, but it is extremely important
to have live testimony as we go through these bills, so thank
you for that.
The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Minority Member for a
statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. TERESA LEGER FERNANDEZ, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you
once again to the tribal leaders as well as agencies who are
here with us today for this important legislative hearing, and
to everybody in the audience. I so enjoy always looking out and
seeing so many who are invested in the issues that we address
here in this Committee. And once again, we are addressing
issues that look at how do we make sure we are bring parity,
how do we right historic injustices, and move forward on behalf
of our Native American, Native Alaskans, and Hawaiians.
Although we are not taking up any of those bills today.
But the first bill I would highlight is Representative
Newhouse's Parity for Tribal Law Enforcement Act. I am a proud
co-sponsor of this key tool to increase police officers in
Indian Country. Just last month, the Subcommittee held an
important oversight hearing on public safety in Indian Country
and heard how hard it was for the BIA and tribes to recruit and
retain law enforcement officers. This legislation hopefully
makes working the beat on our tribal reservations a bit more
enticing by extending Federal benefits and eligibility to
tribal law enforcement officers.
BIA has seen a 30 percent vacancy rate across all law
enforcement positions. Tribes are seeing similar and sometimes
higher rates. Congress needs to do more to support tribes and
their public safety needs.
The next bill is H.R. 4748, Representative Peltola's
Unrecognized Southeast Alaska Native Communities Recognition
and Compensation Act. Once again, our Subcommittee is tasked
with addressing historic injustices in how the United States
has treated our Alaska Native communities. This time we are
called to remember that Congress left out five Alaska Native
communities from the settlement of aboriginal land claims in
Alaska. The bill would amend the ANCSA of 1971 to authorize the
Alaska Native residents of five Southeast Alaska communities to
form urban corporations.
The area of land to be conveyed is a very small portion of
the Tongass National Forest based on historical and factual
records undertaken reported back in 1994. I appreciate the fact
that our first Native Alaskan Congresswoman is moving this bill
forward, a mere three decades later. I look forward to hearing
from you, Mr. Rinehart, on this important issue for our
communities.
Next, we have H.R. 6368, the Indian Buffalo Management Act
from Representative LaMalfa. My friend and colleague,
Congressman Don Young, passed this bill through the House last
Congress. I was proud to support. The tradition of buffalo is
very strong in New Mexico, so I am glad to see this legislation
before us once again. It would enable the Department of the
Interior to assist tribal governments in the rehabilitation and
management of buffalo herds on tribal lands. Through a
permanent buffalo program at the Department of the Interior,
tribes will be better equipped to protect and conserve buffalo
habitat and really bring tribes into the decision-making
process since we know they know so much more than the rest of
us on how to deal and manage these magnificent animals.
Lastly, we have H.R. 6443, the Jamul Indian Village Land
Transfer Act from Representative Issa. This would integrate 172
acres of land across four parcels into the Tribe's reservation
boundary. The bill supports overall government operations,
increases tribal housing, and allows tribal members to have a
place to come together.
We have four bills on the agenda today that highlight a
range of important topics in Indian Country. As any of the 16
pueblos and two Native Nations, the Jicarilla Apache and Navajo
in my district can tell you, we know that each of these issues
are very important to every Native people because they touch on
the things that are crucial, from law enforcement, public
safety, the lands that you hold dear and sacred and have called
your own, and the need to come together as community.
Every tribe deserves the ability to protect their people,
access their historic lands, care for sacred animals, and have
a place to come together as a community.
I look forward to the testimony from our witnesses.
With that, I yield back, Madam Chair.
Ms. Hageman. Wonderful, thank you. I will now recognize Mr.
Newhouse from Washington for 5 minutes to speak on his
legislation.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DAN NEWHOUSE, A
REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Chairwoman Hageman, as well as
Ranking Member Leger Fernandez. Thank you very much for letting
me sit in on your Committee as a guest, and let me also thank
you for all the vital work you do on behalf of Indian Country.
It is very much appreciated.
As you said, I am here today to introduce the Confederated
Tribes of the Colville Reservation as well as being here on
behalf of my legislation, which is H.R. 4524, the Parity for
Tribal Law Enforcement Act, which as you have said is included
in today's hearing, so thank you very much for this
consideration.
H.R. 4524 aims to improve hiring and also increase
retention for tribal law enforcement officers to better protect
Native communities and help address the particular crisis of
the missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls. Across the
country, and particularly in Washington's 4th Congressional
District, many tribes have serious problems recruiting and
retaining qualified law enforcement officers who serve on
reservation lands. Oftentimes, this is a result of training
limitations, the bureaucratic nature of credentialing tribal
officers, and frankly, subpar pay. This often leaves tribal
communities with an inadequate law enforcement presence.
The consequence of this can be fateful as tribal
communities work to combat the opioid crisis, as well as the
MMIW crisis that I described earlier, and also to protect
families and local businesses. And I might say that many of the
other local law enforcement agencies also recruit from tribal
agencies because they are so well trained, so it is difficult
to compete in that kind of a situation.
H.R. 4524 will fix this issue by classifying tribal law
enforcement officers as Federal law enforcement officers for
the purpose of Federal benefits and pensions, among several
other provisions. As has been noted, it has strong bipartisan
support, and I am proud to say strong organizational support as
well. Back in July, I introduced this legislation with
Representative Kilmer from my state of Washington as well as
Representative Davids from the state of Kansas. And today, this
legislation boasts 14 bipartisan co-sponsors as well as nine
tribes and Native American organizations who support it.
One of the supporters is the Confederated Tribes of the
Colville Reservation. Today, they are represented by their
Chairman, Jarred Erickson, who is a resident of Nespelem,
Washington. Welcome, Chairman Erickson, appreciate you being
here and thank you for attending this hearing today. But most
importantly, I want to thank you for always being willing to
work with me and my office on important policy issues that are
so crucial to Indian Country around the United States. Your
support of H.R. 4524 has been essential in moving it through
the legislative process and I certainly look forward to hearing
your testimony on it today.
But I also look forward to the testimony of all the
witnesses that are today and thank them very much for making
the journey to Washington, DC.
With that, Madam Chair, I yield back, and thank you again.
Ms. Hageman. Thank you, Mr. Newhouse. We just had a hearing
a couple of weeks ago about security on our tribal lands, and I
think that this is a very important bill and appreciate your
willingness to bring this forward and help us to move it
through the process.
The Chair now recognizes Mrs. Peltola from Alaska for 5
minutes to speak on her legislation.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. MARY SATTLER PELTOLA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA
Mrs. Peltola. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I would like to
echo what the Representative from Washington, Mr. Newhouse, has
said about both of you and your good works for Indian Country.
Thank you.
Good morning. Today, I am thrilled that we are discussing
how to write a wrong that has lingered for over half a century,
the Alaska Native Claim Settlement Act of 1971, or as we refer
to it, ANCSA, enabled economic self-determination for Alaska
Native people and has benefited all Alaskans for the last 53
years. However, five communities, Haines, Tenakee, Ketchikan,
Wrangell, and Petersburg were left out of this landmark
legislation.
A 1994 congressionally authorized study of ANCSA found that
there was no substantive reason these communities should have
been left out. It was an oversight, but one that has had major
consequences. They never got the chance to claim, manage, and
benefit from their traditional lands, resulting in decades of
lost opportunities for economic growth and cultural grounding.
My predecessor, Congressman Young, knew this was an
injustice and championed this bill all his years in the
Congress. The landless bill's historic progress in this
Congress is a product of his tireless spirit and the hard work
of a bipartisan group of Alaskans, including one of our
witnesses, Tashee Richard Rinehart. Most recently, the bill
received an endorsement from the Wilderness Society, an
important recognition by a leading environmental group, that
there is nothing more pro-environment than Alaska Native
stewardship of Alaska Native lands.
Additionally, the United States Forest Service, the current
manager of the land that this bill would transfer, has
expressed their desire to address this long-standing inequity
in their testimony for today's hearing. Given the unanimous
support for this bill from the Alaska Native communities across
the state and especially in Southeast Alaska, it is clear that
a consensus has emerged, and it is time for Congress to join.
In the spirit of encouraging Native American management of
traditional land and resources, we also have the Indian Buffalo
Management Act in front of us today. For hundreds of years, the
American Buffalo was central to the culture, spiritual well-
being, and livelihoods of our Natives across our nation. The
ruthless dissemination of buffalo herds that occurred in the
mid-19th century dealt a devastating blow to Native communities
that have long relied on these animals.
This bill is an important step toward restoring once
flourishing buffalo herds which have been vital to the
cultural, spiritual, and subsistence traditions of Native
Americans throughout many states. This was another bill that
Representative Young felt strongly about. He knew that we must
put the future of this majestic animal into the hands of those
who have relied on it for nutrition and cultural heritage
alike.
The theme connecting these bills is simple self-
determination, or I like to say self-agency. The ability to
control your own destiny is as American as anything can be. I
am grateful for the progress we are making towards that goal
today and I look forward to working with my colleagues to
advance H.R. 4748 and H.R. 6368.
Madam Chair, I yield back the remainder of my time.
Ms. Hageman. Thank you. The gentlewoman yields back. The
Chair now recognizes Mr. Issa from California for 5 minutes to
speak on his legislation, and thank you for being here.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DARRELL ISSA, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Issa. Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member Fernandez.
I don't get enough opportunities to do things that are win-
wins for the American people. The Jamul Indian Village Land
Transfer Act is a win-win. It not only brings onto reservation
land not just ancestral land but land in which members' multi-
generations have been buried. It includes their cemetery, which
has long been outside of their hands. It includes the entrances
and exits to the existing reservation, but most importantly,
for this once landless tribe, it includes most of the 172 acres
to be used to rebring the dispersed residents and tribal
members back onto the reservation.
The history of the Jamul band of Kumeyaay Indians is one
that is very common in California. They were displaced and
landless for many years. When they finally received a small
parcel of land as a gift from a landowner, they sought to and
were able to put it into trust. They have since that time built
enterprise on the land, but six acres was never enough for them
to live on the land in entirety.
I think the most important part, and not controversial, is
that this piece, the fourth piece of land which is
noncontiguous is noncontiguous both because of development that
has occurred on their historic land and because, in fact, this
historic land had long been a ranch of a non-Native American.
But not to say that there hasn't been a connection. Many of the
tribal members worked on that land. They have a close
association. They walked up the dirt road from their
reservation to this land year, after year, after year.
They have now been able to secure the land and buy it, and
one of the important things that the Tribe has taken as
initiative is to preserve that ranch house and to, in fact,
make it suitable to be there in perpetuity in addition to
taking what was originally developed and agreed by the county
to be 92 parcels for home building but make them a little more
generous. Cut down the total number, provide more greenspace,
and preserve the nature of the land. All of this is part of a
well-orchestrated plan, both the plan that was approved by the
county and now is being enhanced by the Tribe.
I have been honored to work with the Tribe throughout the
process. This will be my sixth or seventh land in trust for one
of my 21 tribes, but this will be one of them that is most
essential. Imagine hundreds of family members and six acres.
Even if those acres were still only for residents, it wouldn't
be sufficient, and that is why this land in trust needs to be
moved up so they can quickly begin the construction that they
would like to do, knowing that their home for their tribal
members will always be in their hands.
And I would like to thank the Chairwoman and the Ranking
Member for hearing us and hopefully for helping us get this
across the finish line this cycle.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Ms. Hageman. Thank you. And thank you for being here and
introducing this important bill.
I think that if you look back over the last year in terms
of the hearings that we have held and the people that we have
invited to come and talk to us about the issues, primarily the
tribal members, righting some of the past wrongs associated
with landownership and use has been one of our priorities.
Addressing Indian Health Services has been another one.
But I think one of the main priorities with the witnesses
that we have come in from tribes all across the country has
been to address putting lands in trust as they should be,
addressing the situation with the Native Alaskans, attempting
to right those wrongs. We have had the Winnebago Tribe. We have
had the Oglala Sioux from South Dakota attempting to get some
land for them so that they can have a memorial for the Wounded
Knee, which is so critically important for our history and
remembering that history.
So, I appreciate the opportunity to have these land bills
brought before this Subcommittee so that we can address some of
those historical wrongs and hopefully move forward with
correcting them and addressing other issues from Indian Country
and our tribal members.
With that, I am going to now introduce our witnesses. Mr.
Freihage, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Management, Bureau of
Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington,
DC; Mr. Chris French, Deputy Chief, U.S. Forest Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC; the Honorable
Jerrad-Michael Erickson, Chairman, Confederated Tribes of the
Colville Reservation, Nespelem, Washington; the Honorable Erica
M. Pinto, Chairwoman, Jamul Indian Village, Jamul, California;
Mr. Richard Rinehart, CEO, Tlingit and Haida Business
Corporation, Juneau, Alaska; and Mr. Ervin Carlson, President,
InterTribal Buffalo Council, Rapid City, South Dakota.
Let me remind the witnesses that under Committee Rules,
they must limit their oral statements to 5 minutes, but your
entire statement will appear in our hearing record. To begin
your testimony, please press the ``talk'' button on the
microphone. We use timing lights. When you begin, the light
will turn green; when you have 1 minute left, the light will
turn yellow; and at the end of 5 minutes, the light will turn
red, and I will ask you to please complete your statement. I
will also allow all witnesses on the panel to testify before
Member questioning.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Jason Freihage for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JASON FREIHAGE, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
MANAGEMENT, BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
THE INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Freihage. Chair Hageman, Ranking Member Leger
Fernandez, and members of the Subcommittee, my name is Jason
Freihage, and I serve as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Management for Indian Affairs at the U.S. Department of the
Interior. Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony
regarding H.R. 4524, Parity for Tribal Law Enforcement Act;
H.R. 6368, Indian Buffalo Management Act; and H.R. 6443, Jamul
Indian Village Land Transfer Act.
H.R. 4524 amends the Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act to
provide that tribal law enforcement officers acting under a
tribe's compact or contract under the Indian Self-Determination
Education Assistance Act would have the authority to enforce
Federal law within the tribe's jurisdiction provided they
complete training, background requirements that are the
equivalent to employees of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office
of Justice Services.
Additionally, under the bill, the tribe must have adopted
policies and procedures that meet or exceed those of the BIA
OJS for the same contracted activity. The bill also provides
that tribal law enforcement officers acting under a contract or
compact shall be deemed eligible for benefits applicable to
Federal law enforcement, including Federal death and injury,
retirement, and pension benefits. Tribes often struggle to
recruit and retain law enforcement officers across Indian
Country, particularly in remote areas. The provision of Federal
benefits to tribal law enforcement officers will help immensely
with tribes' ability to recruit and retain law enforcement
officers and provide safety in their communities.
Under the leadership of Secretary Haaland, improving public
safety in Indian Country and addressing missing and murdered
Indigenous peoples is a top priority. The Department supports
H.R. 4524 as a means to strengthen public safety and justice in
Indian Country.
The North American Bison, commonly called buffalo, is the
official mammal of the United States and plays an important
role in the history of the continent. For many tribes, buffalo
play a significant role in their identity, subsistence,
economic development, conservation, and land management
practices. Buffalo sustained many tribes in North America for
many centuries before they were exterminated by non-Indian
hunters in the mid-1800s.
The successful restoration of buffalo allows an Indian
tribe to benefit from the reintroduction of buffalo into diets
of members of the Indian tribe. Working to restore buffalo and
increase tribal access to buffalo is a priority for the Biden
administration and Secretary Haaland. The BIA's branch of Fish,
Wildlife, and Recreation funds buffalo restoration and
management activities through annual appropriations.
H.R. 6368 would establish a permanent program within the
Department to develop and promote tribal ownership,
conservation, and management of buffalo on Indian lands. Under
H.R. 6368, two entities are eligible for program participation.
Indian tribes, as defined by ISDEAA, and tribal organizations
under Section 17 of the Indian Reorganization Act. To avoid the
exclusion of tribal corporations federally chartered under
Section 3 of the Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act, the Department
recommends H.R. 6368 use the same definition of tribal
organization as ISDEAA.
H.R. 6368 does not provide any funding to support the
permanent program that the bill establishes, which will be
contractable by tribes under ISDEAA. In the event a tribe
utilizing ISDEAA as amended to contract or compact that
permanent program, the Secretary may be required to utilize
funds from other programs to meet that goal. We support the
bill's goals and welcome the opportunity to work with sponsors
and the Subcommittee to provide technical assistance.
H.R. 6443 would place approximately 172.1 acres of land in
San Diego County, California, owned in fee by the Jamul Indian
Village, into trust for the benefit of the Jamul Indian
Village. The bill makes the lands part of the reservation for
the Jamul Indian Village and includes a prohibition against
Class 2 and Class 3 gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory
Act.
The parcels to be transferred into trust are comprised of a
parcel with Daisy Drive, which is the main access road to the
Jamul Indian Village's existing trust land, a parcel that
contains culturally significant church and cemetery, and the
Jamul Indian Village plans to use the two parcels for housing
development, a clinic, and an administration building. The
department supports H.R. 6443, restoration of tribal homelands,
as a priority for the Department and the Biden administration.
Chair Hageman, Ranking Member Leger Fernandez, and members
of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide
the Department's views on these important bills, and I look
forward to answering any questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Freihage follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jason Freihage, Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Management, Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior
on H.R. 4524, H.R. 6368, and H.R. 6443
Chair Hageman, Ranking Member Leger Fernandez, and members of the
Subcommittee, my name is Jason Freihage, and I serve as the Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Management for Indian Affairs at the U.S.
Department of the Interior (Department). Thank you for the opportunity
to present testimony regarding H.R. 4524, ``Parity for Tribal Law
Enforcement Act,'' H.R. 6368, ``Indian Buffalo Management Act,'' and
H.R. 6443, ``Jamul Indian Village Land Transfer Act.''
H.R. 4524, Parity for Tribal Law Enforcement Act
H.R. 4524 amends the Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act to provide
that Tribal Law Enforcement Officers (LEOs) acting under a Tribe's
contract or compact under the Indian Self Determination and Education
Assistance Act would have the authority to enforce Federal law within
the Tribe's jurisdiction provided they complete training and background
requirements that are equivalent to employees of the Bureau of Indian
Affairs Office of Justice Services (BIA-OJS). Additionally, under the
bill the Tribe must have adopted policies and procedures that meet or
exceed those of the BIA-OJS for the same compacted or contracted
program, service, function, or activity.
Importantly, the bill also provides that Tribal LEOs acting under a
contract or compact shall be deemed eligible for benefits applicable to
Federal LEOs, including Federal death and injury, retirement and
pension benefits. Tribes often struggle to recruit and retain LEOs
across Indian country, particularly in remote areas. The provision of
Federal benefits to Tribal LEOs will help immensely with Tribes'
ability to recruit and retain LEOs and provide for the overall safety
of their communities.
Under the leadership of Secretary Haaland, improving public safety
in Indian country and addressing the Missing and Murdered Indigenous
Peoples crisis is a top priority for the Department. The Department
supports H.R. 4524 as a means to strengthen public safety and justice
in Indian country.
H.R. 6368, Indian Buffalo Management Act
The North American Bison, commonly called buffalo, is the official
mammal of the United States and plays an important role in the history
of this continent. For many Tribes, buffalo play a significant role in
their identity, subsistence, economic development, and conservation and
land management practices. The historical, cultural, and spiritual
connection between buffalo and Tribes cannot be overstated. Buffalo
sustained many Indian Tribes in North America for many centuries before
they were exterminated by non-Indian hunters in the mid-1800s. Indian
Tribes have long desired the reestablishment of buffalo throughout
Indian country. The successful restoration of buffalo allows an Indian
Tribe to benefit from the reintroduction of buffalo into the diets of
the members of the Indian Tribe. Working to restore buffalo and
increase tribal access to buffalo is a priority for the Biden
administration and for Secretary Haaland. The BIA's Branch of Fish,
Wildlife, and Recreation funds buffalo restoration and management
activities through annual appropriations. H.R. 6368, the Indian Buffalo
Management Act, would establish a permanent program within the
Department to develop and promote Tribal ownership, conservation, and
management of buffalo and buffalo habitat on Indian lands.
Under H.R. 6368, two entities are eligible for program
participation: Indian Tribes, as defined by the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA), and Tribal
organizations organized under Section 17 of the Indian Reorganization
Act (IRA). To avoid the exclusion of Tribal corporations federally
chartered under Section 3 of the Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act, P.L. 74-
816, the Department recommends H.R. 6368 use the same definition of
``Tribal organization'' as ISDEAA.
H.R. 6368 does not provide any funding to support the permanent
program that the bill establishes, which will be contractible by Tribes
under ISDEAA. In the event of a Tribe utilizing ISDEAA, as amended, to
contract or compact that permanent program, the Secretary may be
required to utilize funds from other programs to meet the Department's
statutory obligations under ISDEAA.
Buffalo once roamed this continent in the tens of millions and the
Department appreciate efforts to improve management of this vital
species. The Department recognizes our shared interest in modernizing
buffalo management in Indian Country and appreciates Congress's
attention to this effort. We support the bill's goals and welcome the
opportunity to work with the sponsors and subcommittee to provide
technical assistance.
H.R. 6443, Jamul Indian Village Land Transfer Act
H.R. 6443 would place approximately 172.1 acres of land in San
Diego County, California, owned in fee by the Jamul Indian Village into
trust for the benefit of the Jamul Indian Village. The bill makes the
lands part of the reservation for the Jamul Indian Village and includes
a prohibition against class II and Class III gaming under the Indian
Gaming Regulatory Act.
The parcels to be transferred into trust are comprised of a parcel
with Daisy Drive which is the main access road to the Jamul Indian
Village's existing trust land, a parcel that contains a culturally
significant church and cemetery, and the Jamul Indian Village plans to
use two parcels for housing development, a clinic, and an
administration building.
The Department supports H.R. 6443. Restoration of Tribal homelands
is a priority for the Department and Biden Administration.
Conclusion
Chair Hageman, Ranking Member Leger Fernandez, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide the Department's
views on these important bills. I look forward to answering any
questions that you may have.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Jason Freihage, Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Management for Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior
Mr. Freihage did not submit responses to the Committee by the
appropriate deadline for inclusion in the printed record.
Questions Submitted by Representative Westerman
Question 1. Regarding H.R. 4524, does the Department of the
Interior have information on what percentage of or specified amount of
funds within tribal self-determination contracts or compacts for law
enforcement services are suggested to be set aside for tribes to
provide the pension and benefits for tribal law enforcement officers?
1a) If yes, would that suggest a percentage of or specified amount
of funds be the same or a similar amount that the Department of the
Interior would set aside per federal law enforcement officers employed
by your agency to pay into each of their benefits?
1b) Does the Department extend any other funds that would not be
included in the tribal self-determination contracts or compacts to
support providing benefits and pensions to federal law enforcement
officers?
Question 2. Regarding H.R. 6368, what benefits has the Department
of the Interior seen from the current funding it provides to preserve
the historical, cultural, traditional, and spiritual relationship
between buffalo and Indian tribes?
2a) Please elaborate on how a formal program could help better
guide resources.
______
Ms. Hageman. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Chris French for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF CHRIS FRENCH, DEPUTY CHIEF, U.S. FOREST SERVICE,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. French. Good afternoon, Chair Hageman and Ranking
Member Leger Fernandez. It is a pleasure to be with you today
and the Subcommittee members.
My name is Chris French, and I am the Deputy Chief for the
U.S. Forest Service over the National Forest System, and I am
pleased to be here today to discuss the United States
Department of Agriculture's views regarding the conveyance of
lands within the Tongass National Forest to five Native
villages in Alaska as proposed under H.R. 4748.
USDA recognizes the special relationship that Alaska
Natives have to their land in Southeast Alaska, which are the
homelands of the Tlingit, Haida, and Tsimshian people. We
acknowledge the important customary, traditional, and current
use of the Tongass National Forest and the contributions of the
land and resources to the social and economic well-being of the
region's communities. Through our Joint Secretarial Order on
fulfilling the trust responsibility to Indian tribes and the
stewardship of Federal lands and waters, USDA recognizes that
it is the policy of the United States to restore tribal
homelands to tribal ownership and to promote tribal stewardship
and tribal self-government.
H.R. 4748 would amend the Alaska Native Claim Settlement
Act and authorize Alaska Native Residents of Haines, Ketchikan,
Petersburg, Tenakee, and Wrangell to form urban corporations.
The legislation directs conveyance of specifically identified
surface estate lands within the Tongass National Forest in the
amount of 23,040 acres to each corporation, totaling
approximately 115,000 acres. The bill directs conveyance of
subsurface estate of these parcels to the Sealaska Regional
Native Corporation.
The USDA supports the intent of the legislation, and we
look forward to working with the Committee, bill sponsors, and
tribal communities to address this long-standing inequity. We
continue to have productive conversations with the relevant
stakeholders, and we look forward to discussing with the
Subcommittee and the sponsor of the bill's legislation about
the potential impacts on the Tongass National Forest program of
work as well as opportunities to promote tribal and/or
Indigenous stewardship of our Federal lands and waters
consistent with the Joint Secretarial Order.
Chairman Hageman, Ranking Member Leger Fernandez, that
concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any
questions that you may have on this important bill.
[The prepared statement of Mr. French follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chris French, Deputy Chief, National Forest
System, United States Department Of Agriculture--Forest Service
on H.R. 4748
H.R. 4748 would amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of
1971 (ANCSA) to authorize Alaska Native residents of five Southeast
Alaska communities (Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee, and
Wrangell) to form urban corporations. The legislation directs
conveyance of specifically identified surface estate lands within the
Tongass National Forest in the amount of 23,040 acres to each
corporation, totaling approximately 115,202 acres. The bill directs
conveyance of subsurface estate of these parcels to the Sealaska
Regional Native Corporation.
The proposed conveyance of 23,040 acres to each new corporation
conforms with the acreage provided to the ten Southeast Alaska
communities that were recognized and determined to be eligible under
ANCSA. Unlike ANCSA, H.R. 4748 does not require that the selected acres
include the township in which all or part of the community is located,
nor that it be contiguous and in reasonably compact tracts. The
selected NFS lands are in 61 named parcels, including some that are
split into distinct parts or include adjacent islands. The parcels
range in size from 17 to 9,092 acres and are located across seven
Forest Service Ranger Districts. All parcels contain old growth and
cumulatively approximately 80,000 acres, or 69% of the proposed
conveyance, are considered productive old growth. Nearly all the
parcels contain inventoried roadless acres and 52% of the cumulative
acres proposed for conveyance are roadless.
Background
The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act effected a final settlement
of the aboriginal claims in Alaska through payment of $962.5 million
and conveyances of more than 44 million acres of Federal land. There
was a distinction made in ANCSA between the villages in the southeast
and those located elsewhere. Prior to the passage of ANCSA, Alaska
Natives in the southeast received payments from the United States
pursuant to court cases in the 1950s and late 1960s, for the taking of
their aboriginal lands. Because Alaska Natives in the Sealaska region
benefited from an additional cash settlement under ANCSA, the eligible
communities received less acreage than their counterparts elsewhere in
Alaska. Congress named the villages in the southeast that were to be
recognized in ANCSA. The communities of Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg,
Tenakee, and Wrangell--the five communities addressed in H.R. 4748--
were not among those listed.
Alaska Natives living in the five communities applied to receive
benefits under ANCSA and were subsequently determined to be ineligible.
Three of the five appealed their status and were denied.
Notwithstanding the determination of ineligibility of some communities
for corporate status under ANCSA at the time, Alaska Natives in these
five communities were enrolled as at-large shareholders in the Sealaska
Corporation. The enrolled members of the five communities comprise more
than 20 percent of the enrolled membership of the Sealaska Corporation.
Analysis of Identified Conveyance of public lands from the Tongass
National Forest lands
Due to the high value of these lands for multiple uses on the
National Forest, the Forest Service has concerns that the currently
proposed conveyance of lands will affect the ability of the Forest
Service to implement the stated goals of the Tongass National Forest
Land and Resource Management Plan across program areas, including
meeting current timber harvest goals and the transition to young growth
timber harvest.
The Federal government manages subsistence harvest of fish and
wildlife on federal lands in Alaska. Once lands are conveyed from
National Forest System ownership, they no longer fall under the Federal
Subsistence Management Program. The proposed legislation generally
addresses subsistence, allowing for the lands conveyed to newly
established native corporations to remain open and available to
subsistence under applicable law and subject to reasonable restrictions
by the corporation on public use. As proposed, the state of Alaska
would regulate hunting and fishing on the conveyed lands and the newly
formed corporations would decide who may access their lands for that
purpose.
Summary
USDA recognizes the special relationship that Alaska Natives have
to the lands of southeast Alaska, which are the homelands of the
Tlingit, Haida, and Tsimshian people. We acknowledge important
customary, traditional, and current uses of the Tongass National Forest
and the contributions of the land and resources to the social and
economic well-being of the region's communities. Through joint
Secretarial Order on Fulfilling the Trust Responsibility to Indian
Tribes in the Stewardship of Federal Lands and Waters (SO 3403), USDA
recognizes that it is the policy of the United States to restore Tribal
homelands to Tribal ownership and to promote Tribal stewardship and
Tribal self-government. In keeping with the joint Secretarial Order,
the Forest Service is entering into co-stewardship agreements with
Tribes in Alaska and across the United States.
USDA supports the intent of the legislation, and we look forward to
working with the committee, bill sponsors, and tribal communities to
address this long-standing inequity. We continue to have productive
conversations with the relevant stakeholders and look forward to
discussing with the Subcommittee and sponsor of the bill the
legislation's impact on the Tongass National Forest's program of work
as well as opportunities to promote Tribal and/or Indigenous
stewardship of our federal lands and waters, consistent with the Joint
Secretarial Order.
______
Ms. Hageman. I thank the witness for his testimony.
The Chair now recognizes the Honorable Jarred-Michael
Erickson for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JARRED-MICHAEL ERICKSON, CHAIRMAN,
CONFEDERATE TRIBES OF THE COLVILLE RESERVATION, NESPELEM,
WASHINGTON
Mr. Erickson. [Speaking Native language.] Hello. Good day,
Chair Hageman, Ranking Member Leger Fernandez, and members of
the Committee.
[Speaking Native language.] My name is Jarred-Michael
Erickson. I am the Chairman of the Colville Business Council,
the governing body of the Colville Tribes. I am accompanied
today by C. Brown, the Colville Tribe's Chief of Police, who is
directly behind me.
Thank you for inviting me to testify on H.R. 4524, the
Parity for Tribal Law Enforcement Act. I want to thank
Congressman Newhouse for introducing this bill and for
participating in today's hearing. Half of the Colville
Reservation is within Congressman Newhouse's district, and we
appreciate his interest in tribal law enforcement and the
crisis of missing and murdered Indigenous women.
I would also like to thank Deputy Secretary Freihage for
his willingness to meet with our representatives to discuss
details about the bill and how the Department would implement
it if it were enacted.
As I mentioned in my written statement, on any given shift,
the Colville Tribe Police Department has an average of only
three police officers on duty to patrol the entire 2,275 square
miles, or 1.4 million acres, of the Colville Reservation. This
means that an officer's backup is at least 30 minutes away by
car at any given time, though usually longer. We currently have
8 tribal officer vacancies out of the 29 police officers in our
department, which means we are operating at approximately two-
thirds capacity. In September 2022, we had nine vacancies, so
we have been able to fill one in just over a year.
This high vacancy rate is mostly due to our challenge of
recruiting and retaining police officers in rural areas and the
ability of the Colville Tribes and other similarly situated
Indian tribes to provide benefits that are competitive with
those offered by state and local police departments. Because of
this, there is an ongoing pattern in Indian Country of
recruiting and training officers only to see them leave for
jobs with neighboring towns and municipalities that offer more
attractive benefits.
It costs Colville Tribes approximately $150,000 to put new
officers through the academy and train them to be able to
handle calls on their own. When officers leave for employment
elsewhere, the Tribe must pay these costs again as soon as we
can fill the vacancy. I just wanted to also add that we spend
about $4.1 million of our own tribal funds for our law
enforcement officers.
The Colville PD officers not only enforce tribal laws and
state laws through cross-deputization agreements, they also
enforce Federal laws. Our officers possess special law
enforcement commissions, or SLECs. SLECs are agreements with
the BIA that authorize tribal officers to enforce violations of
Federal laws. Neither Colville PD officers nor any other tribal
enforcement officers that possess SLECs receive any additional
compensation from the BIA for undertaking these duties.
Our tribal PD assumes these Federal duties out of necessity
because most major crimes like rape and murder in Indian
Country are Federal offenses. We need to have officers that can
respond to those types of calls, conduct investigations, and
put forward the best case for Federal prosecution.
H.R. 4524 would allow tribal law enforcement officers to be
considered Federal law enforcement officers for purposes of
certain Federal laws, including for Federal pension and
retirement benefits. For the Colville Tribes, allowing our law
enforcement officers to begin accruing pension or retirement
benefits would have several immediate benefits. For young
officers, the bill would provide a more attractive benefit
package than the Colville Tribe could otherwise offer. The bill
would also allow Federal law enforcement officers that wish to
work in Indian Country the ability to do so while maintaining
their current benefits.
As I mentioned, the Colville PD and many other tribal law
enforcement agencies already perform the duties of Federal law
enforcement officers. Making this change would put tribal
officers on parity with Federal officer counterparts and
recognize the heightened responsibility our officers undertake.
The Colville Tribe strongly supports H.R. 4524 and urges
the Committee to approve it quickly. I would be happy to answer
any questions that you may have.
[Speaking Native language.] Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Erickson follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Jarred-Michael Erickson, Chairman,
Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation
on H.R. 4524
As a rural, land-based Indian tribe, the Confederated Tribes of the
Colville Reservation (``Colville Tribes'' or the ``CCT'') has unique
challenges providing law enforcement services to our tribal community.
Many of these challenges are grounded in recruitment and retention of
tribal police officers and the inability of the CCT and other similarly
situated Indian tribes to provide benefits that are competitive with
those offered by state and local police departments.
The Colville Tribes strongly supports H.R. 4524, the ``Parity for
Tribal Law Enforcement Act,'' because it would allow tribal law
enforcement officers to participate in, on a prospective basis, the
federal pension and retirement programs applicable to federal law
enforcement officers. Tribal law enforcement for many Indian tribes
that have contracted law enforcement from the Bureau of Indian Affairs
(BIA) already enforce federal laws and have the same duties as federal
law enforcement officers.
Providing tribal law enforcement with the same benefits would put
tribal officers in parity with their federal officer counterparts. It
would also provide an immediate boost to the CCT and other Indian
tribes that for years have recruited and trained officers only to see
them depart for positions with local jurisdictions that offer these
types of benefits.
Background on the Colville Tribes' Law Enforcement Challenges
Although now considered a single Indian tribe, the Confederated
Tribes of the Colville Reservation is a confederation of twelve
aboriginal tribes and bands from across eastern Washington state,
northeastern Oregon, Idaho, and British Columbia. The present-day
Colville Reservation is in north-central Washington state and was
established by Executive Order in 1872. The Colville Reservation covers
more than 1.4 million acres and its boundaries include portions of both
Okanogan and Ferry counties.
Geographically, the Colville Reservation is larger than the state
of Delaware and is the largest Indian reservation in the pacific
Northwest. The Colville Reservation is home to more than 5,000
residents, which include both tribal members, their families, and non-
Indians. Approximately 50 percent of the Colville Tribes' 9,300
enrolled members live on or adjacent to the reservation.
As noted above, the Colville Tribes has contracted the law
enforcement function from the BIA under the Indian Self-Determination
and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA). BIA data indicates that there
are 234 tribal law enforcement programs nationally and that more than
90 percent of those programs have been contracted by the respective
tribes under ISDEAA. As a contracted program, the Colville Tribes' law
enforcement officers work for the Colville Tribal Police Department
(``Colville PD'') and are tribal, not federal, employees. In contrast,
for those relatively small number of tribes for which the BIA provides
direct law enforcement services, those officers are federal employees
and receive all federal pension and retirement benefits by default.
Colville PD officers receive full deputy commissions from both
Okanogan and Ferry counties once they have successfully completed the
police academy, which allows them to enforce all state criminal laws.
These commissions enable our officers to better serve the community
because they often respond to households that have both tribal members
and non-members residing in the same home. The downside to this
arrangement is that neither county consistently patrols their
respective areas of the Colville Reservation.
Similarly, Colville PD officers also possess Special Law
Enforcement Commissions (SLECs). SLECs are agreements with the BIA's
Office of Justice Services that authorize tribal officers to enforce
violations of federal laws. Neither Colville PD officers nor any other
tribal law enforcement officers that possess SLECs receive any
additional compensation from the BIA for enforcing federal laws. The
Colville Tribes' officers thus enforce tribal, state, and federal laws.
On any given shift, the Colville PD has an average of only three
police officers on duty to patrol the entire 2,275 square miles of the
Colville Reservation and the more than 250 parcels of off-reservation
trust lands. This means that an officer's backup is at least 30 minutes
away (by car) at any given time, though usually longer.
Like other tribal police departments, the Colville PD has multiple
vacancies that have been and remain difficult to fill. Of the 29
officer positions at the Colville PD, eight of these positions are
vacant. Similarly, three of the six dispatch positions are vacant as
are two of the eight administrative positions. Collectively, the
Colville PD has a 30 percent vacancy rate for both commissioned and
non-commissioned officer positions.
BIA law enforcement is funded at only a portion of the actual need.
Recruitment and retention remain acute issues even with the Colville
Tribes supplementing the BIA funding allocation by more than 200
percent annually.
H.R. 4524 Would Immediately Boost Indian Tribes' Efforts to Recruit and
Retain Law Enforcement Officers
For several years, the Colville Tribes and other Indian tribes in
the state of Washington have sought to provide a pathway for tribal
police officers to receive pension and retirement benefits to in assist
in recruiting and retaining officers. H.R. 4524 would accomplish this
by providing that tribal law enforcement officers can be considered
federal law enforcement officers for certain laws, including for
federal pension and retirement benefits applicable to federal law
enforcement officers.
For the Colville Tribes, allowing our tribal law enforcement
officers to begin accruing pension and retirement benefits would have
several immediate benefits. First, it would provide a more attractive
benefit package to would-be officers and would help us keep officers
that the Colville PD trains from leaving for other jurisdictions.
Indian tribes nationwide can attest to having recruited and trained law
enforcement officers only to see them leave because the tribes cannot
compete with benefits that other jurisdictions provide.
By providing tribal officers with access to federal law enforcement
benefits, H.R. 4524 would also open the door for tribes to attract law
enforcement officers that may be employed by the federal government but
may wish to work for an Indian tribe without losing their benefits. It
would also make working for Indian tribes an option for those federal
law enforcement officers that have reached the federal mandatory
retirement age of 57 but desire to continue working as a law
enforcement officer for a few more years. In both cases, the federal
law enforcement officers could work for tribal police departments
without losing their retirement benefits or having to start anew in a
different retirement program. This would equally apply to individuals
who are leaving the U.S. military, several of whom the Colville PD has
employed as tribal officers upon them leaving active duty.
H.R. 4524 is intended as an opt-in for Indian tribes. Tribal
officers have varied backgrounds and years of service, often in other
state or local jurisdictions or with the federal government. A small
number of states have, under state law, allowed tribal officers to
participate in state law enforcement retirement systems. Arizona is one
such state. An officer that has several years of service as a law
enforcement officer in a non-Indian jurisdiction in one of these states
before working as a tribal officer in the same state may wish to keep
participating in the state retirement program. As the Committee further
refines the bill, the CCT suggests that the bill text clarify that
individual tribal officers may be treated as federal law officers upon
designation by their respective tribal employers.
Finally, and as noted above, the Colville Tribes' officers and
presumably those of the more than 90 percent of tribes that have
contracted law enforcement from the BIA under the ISDEAA already
perform the duties of federal law enforcement officers by enforcing
federal laws pursuant to SLECs. Allowing tribal officers to participate
in the federal benefits program would put tribal officers in parity
with their federal officer counterparts.
The SLEC Provisions of H.R. 4524 Would Address Confusion and Treat
Tribal Officers Equitably with Federal Law Enforcement Officers
As introduced, most of the text of the H.R. 4524 was derived from
section 104 of the ``Tribal Law and Order Reauthorization and
Amendments Act,'' which the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs
favorably reported in both the 115th and 116th Congresses. H.R. 4524
would clarify that tribal law enforcement officers will be considered
federal law enforcement officers for purposes of enforcing federal
criminal laws without being required to obtain SLECs provided they meet
certain training, background investigation, and other requirements and
are certified to enforce federal laws by the BIA.
We understand that the BIA originally suggested this provision to
provide clarity on the legal status of tribal law enforcement officers
without SLECs and to ensure that those tribal law enforcement officers
are treated equitably when they are carrying out the functions or
services contracted from the BIA.
Currently all the Colville PD's officers have SLECs and annual
renewals of these agreements proceed smoothly. In past years, however,
the CCT had difficulty obtaining SLECs because of regional differences
in the boilerplate SLEC agreements that the BIA has utilized which, in
the CCT's case, would have confused application of the Federal Tort
Claims Act to tribal officers when enforcing federal law.
H.R. 4524 fixes these issues and would provide Indian tribes with
an additional mechanism to enable their tribal officers to enforce
federal laws and be treated as federal law enforcement officers for
liability purposes without obtaining SLECs.
The Colville Tribes strongly supports H.R. 4524 and urges the
Committee to approve it as soon as possible.
______
Ms. Hageman. Thank you for your testimony.
The Chair now recognizes the Honorable Erica Pinto for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ERICA M. PINTO, CHAIRWOMAN, JAMUL INDIAN
VILLAGE, JAMUL, CALIFORNIA
Ms. Pinto. Good morning, Madam Chair, and distinguished
members of the Subcommittee, and good morning to the Jamul
Indian Village who is watching, my mom and my nieces. Good
morning.
My name is Erica Pinto, and I have the honor to serve as
Chairwoman of the Jamul Indian Village of California. Thank you
for the opportunity to testify today on H.R. 6443, the Jamul
Indian Village Land Transfer Act.
I have submitted testimony that discusses my Tribe's
history, our perseverance, and our need for additional trust
lands. I plan to focus my remarks this morning on our vital
need for trust lands to ensure access to our reservation, to
protect our cemetery and church, and to return my people to our
ancestral homeland.
My ancestors were a band of Kumeyaay Indians known as the
Jamul Band. Our people have continuously resided on a portion
of our aboriginal territory in Southern California since before
the arrival of the Spanish. For generations, we were without an
officially declared land base until the Catholic Diocese
received a grant of our ancestral cemetery for the purpose of
an Indian graveyard.
The cemetery is the final resting place for nearly all of
our relatives dating back to the 1800s. The Diocese later built
a small church on the land in the early 1900s and allowed us to
reside together, remain close to each other, our ancestors, and
practice our culture and traditions. Our commitment to remain
there, despite the poor living conditions and attempts to
remove us, speaks to our love and connection to this cemetery
and the surrounding lands.
In the 1970s, the Secretary of the Interior initially took
4.6 acres into trust to establish our reservation. Until the
early 1980s, our people lacked basic utilities like running
water and electricity. One shallow well supplied contaminated
drinking water to my people. Our housing was primarily small
shacks and trailers. We did without basic amenities in order to
remain on our ancestral lands near our cemetery to protect our
culture and our way of life.
Living conditions for our people were deplorable. The
Department of the Interior last exercised its authority to
accept land into trust for our Tribe in 1982 when it approved a
1.3-acre fee-to-trust transfer. Over time, our ancestral lands
have diminished from over 1640 acres to only 6 acres, which now
comprises our entire land base, one of the smallest
reservations in the country.
Since the Tribe's lands were accepted into trust, we have
done our very best to maximize the use of our land. In 2005, we
made the extremely difficult decision to move off the
reservation in hopes of a better life with a dream of becoming
self-sufficient and not relying on the Federal Government. We
wanted to be able to provide government services to our
members. However, the removal from our ancestral lands resulted
in a significant loss of culture, life, language, and community
since we have been unable to reside together on tribal lands.
H.R. 6443 accepts these four parcels of land into trust for
the Tribe's benefit. The land is located within our ancestral
territory in rural San Diego County, and since this bill
prohibits gaming, it is important for the Subcommittee to know
that the Tribe cannot use these lands for gaming purposes once
accepted into trust.
The bill protects access to our reservation, preserves our
ancestral cemetery and church, and it allows us to bring our
people home once and for all. In addition to tribal housing, we
plan to build a tribal administration building, a healthcare
facility, and a police station. We plan to preserve our culture
and historic sites, including our cemetery, and we plan to
reinvigorate our culture, including language revitalization and
reincorporating our traditional foods into our way of life.
Bringing our members back together will provide them with
access to our cultural sites and improve services and
resources. It is vital to ensure our continued existence and
our right to exercise our self-determination and self-
sufficiency.
Thank you again to the Subcommittee for holding this
hearing and for your consideration of H.R. 6443, the Jamul
Indian Village Land Transfer Act. I would also like to thank
Representative Issa for his tireless work on behalf of my Tribe
and all of Indian Country, and I am happy to answer any
questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Pinto follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairwoman Erica M. Pinto, Jamul Indian Village
of California
on H.R. 6443
Chairwoman Hageman and distinguished Members of the House
Subcommittee on Indian and Insular Affairs, my name is Erica M. Pinto,
and I have the honor to serve as Chairwoman of the Jamul Indian Village
of California (the ``Tribe or ``JIV''). Thank you for the opportunity
to provide testimony on H.R. 6443, the Jamul Indian Village Land
Transfer Act, and thank you to Representative Issa for his dedication
to represent the interests of the Native American tribes in his
district, and in particular for his notable efforts on H.R. 6443.
History of the Jamul Indian Village
JIV's 6-acre Reservation, one of the smallest in the United States,
is located in a rural area east of downtown San Diego, California. The
Tribe's ancestors were a band of Kumeyaay (Mission-Diegueno) Indians
known as the Jamul Band, who historically occupied their village
territory in the Jamul Valley northwest of the San Ysidro Mountains.
The Jamul Band were known as Mission Indians of California because at
one point, they were under the jurisdiction of Spanish missionaries who
established missions throughout Southern California for the purpose of
converting and ``reducing'' the aboriginal population and using them as
laborers to facilitate Spanish settlement of the area. Historically
speaking, the Jamul Band is a part of the group of Indians who referred
to themselves as Kumeyaay people, but were also known politically as
the Diegueno people because they were under the jurisdiction of the San
Diego Mission de Alcala during Spanish control of the region. Spanish
records as early as 1776 reference an Indian settlement at Jamul.
Members of the Jamul Band have continuously resided on a portion of
their aboriginal territory since before the arrival of the Spanish
until present day, which included land within the Tribe's present-day
Reservation.
Despite the Jamul Band's legal claim to occupy lands in the Jamul
Valley, after the United States government acquired California under
the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the United States agreed to recognize
land grants of Mexican citizens who decided to remain in California.
One such land grant was the Jamul Rancho within the Jamul Valley, which
was part of the Jamul Band's ancestral lands. Thereafter, members of
the Jamul Band occupying lands located within Jamul Rancho were
considered by white settlers to be ``squatters,'' and were at risk of
being displaced from their lands.
In 1891, Congress passed the Mission Indian Relief Act, creating a
Commission that came to be known as the ``Smiley Commission,'' with the
mandate to survey and select reservation lands for each band or village
of Mission Indians residing within California. Two of the three
commissioners were not present in California to fulfill the Act's
mandate, and thus did not participate in the survey and selection
process. A single commissioner oversaw the survey and selection of
Indian reservations under the Act. Reports from this commissioner make
clear that he did not visit any areas south of what is now Interstate
8, and the closest he came to Jamul Rancho was 22 miles east at Campo.
The Smiley Commission created under the Mission Indian Relief Act
did not accomplish its legislative mandate to both select a reservation
for each band or village, and to include the land and villages that had
been in the actual occupation and possession of each band or village of
Mission Indians. The Jamul Band was omitted from the Smiley
Commission's work, and evidence shows that the commissioners intended
for members of small bands of Indians to move onto other ``catch-all''
reservations that had been established with what was deemed sufficient
capacity to accommodate additional Mission Indians. Although the Smiley
Commission thought that the closest reservations would provide for
small bands scattered throughout San Diego County, this assumption did
not account for cultural norms among these bands to avoid entry onto
another band's lands without a specific invitation from that band, or
the Jamul Band's determination to protect its own culture and way of
life.
Therefore, despite the commissioners' intent to provide the Jamul
Band with a home at a nearby reservation, members of the Jamul Band did
not move. Rather, the situation for the Jamul Band remained largely
unchanged, with its members living in abject poverty on its ancestral
lands but without an officially declared land base, until the Coronado
Beach Company granted the land holding the Jamul Band's ancestral
cemetery to the Catholic Diocese ``for the purpose of an Indian
graveyard and approach thereto.'' The cemetery is the resting place for
nearly all of the Tribe's ancestors, dating back to the 1800s. The
Jamul Band's ties to this ancestral cemetery and surrounding lands
explains their resoluteness to remain there. The Diocese later built a
small church for the Jamul Band in the early 1900s, and provided a
modicum of legal protection for a portion of its Indian village. The
cemetery and church remain a vital part of the Tribe's culture and
traditions, and are part of the lands that are the subject of H.R.
6443.
Following failures of the Superintendents of the Office of Indian
Affairs in Southern California to effectively engage with scattered
Indians beyond reservations that had been created for larger Mission
Indian bands prior to and in conjunction with the Mission Indian Relief
Act, the federal government appointed a special agent in 1908 whose
jurisdiction was over the landless Indians of Southern California, in
order to investigate conditions and ``secure title'' for ``landless
Indians'' like members of the Jamul Band, who did not then reside on a
federal reservation, and whose land tenure was uncertain and at risk of
encroachment by settlers.
The need for action by the federal government was summarized by
Special Agent C.E. Kelsey in a letter to the Commissioner of Indian
Affairs, stating, ``There are no necessities in California equal to
those of the robbed, starving, helpless people for whom [monies for
support and civilization of California Indians] are appropriated.''
Although the federal government was charged with securing title for
landless Indians who had not been afforded their rightful lands under
the Mission Indian Relief Act, the federal government's de facto policy
eventually became to prioritize those Indians and Indian bands who were
homeless, aggressive with respect to their land rights, or in
significant conflict with non-Indians who claimed a right to Indian-
occupied land. As the Jamul Band was a relatively small band living on
aboriginal lands located within the boundaries of privately held land
at that time, the Jamul Band was largely ignored. This constituted yet
another failure on the part of the federal government to provide land
for the Jamul Indians who had steadfastly remained on their ancestral
land.
Establishment of the JIV Reservation
As a testament to the Tribe's determination, the Jamul Band's
Indian Village was the only non-reservation village that survived up
through the 1970s when the Secretary of the Interior took into trust
the initial 4.66 acres of the Tribe's Reservation--land that had been
occupied by members of the Jamul Band since before the Spanish Mission
era, from time immemorial. Until the early 1980s, the Tribe's lands
lacked basic utilities like running water and electricity. One shallow
well at the low point of the cemetery property supplied drinking water
of dubious quality for Tribal members. Members of the Jamul Band did
without these modern amenities in order to remain on their lands, near
their ancestral cemetery, as a way to protect their culture and way of
life. Although their culture survived, living conditions for the Jamul
Band were dire, and they severely lacked economic resources to improve
their standard of living.
Present-day members of the Tribe are descended from the Jamul Band,
and the Tribe's lands have been diminished over time from more than 640
acres to a small 6-acre sliver of land alongside the ancestral cemetery
and church. The Tribe was formally organized under the Indian
Reorganization Act (``IRA'') in 1981, when the Jamul Indians determined
that they would pursue organization as a half-blood community under
Section 19 of the IRA. Having established its 4.66-acre Reservation,
the Jamul Indians held an election in May 1981, and ratified a
Constitution that formally established the Jamul Indian Village. The
Department of the Interior (``Department'') approved the Tribe's
Constitution two months later, and the Secretary of the Interior then
included the Tribe in the next list of federally recognized tribes
published in the Federal Register. The Department last exercised its
authority to accept land into trust for the Tribe in 1982, when it
approved a 1.372-acre fee-to-trust transfer under a grant deed naming
the Jamul Indian Village as beneficiary.
Therefore, two parcels--collectively 6.032 acres--comprise the
Tribe's entire trust land base, one of the smallest in the United
States. We are thankful that the federal government recognizes that
helping tribes to reacquire lands--and the placement of those lands
into trust--is key to tribes' future prosperity and is essential to
maintain culturally significant areas that are central to tribal
identity, religion, and beliefs.
H.R. 6443 and the Tribe's Needs for Additional Trust Lands
As mentioned above, Tribal members endured dire economic conditions
for over a century, in order to stay near their ancestors' resting
place and to keep their culture strong. Since the Tribe's lands were
accepted into trust, the Tribe has done its very best to maximize use
of its limited trust acreage. It eventually became clear to Tribal
members that, in order to improve living conditions for future
generations, sacrifices would need to be made. Beginning in 2005, the
Tribe's members voluntarily moved off of the Tribe's 6-acre
Reservation, as a sacrifice to ensure that the Tribe would become self-
sufficient and less reliant on the federal government. Since this time,
the Tribe's small Reservation has been fully and completely developed
by the Tribe's economic endeavors, which include a gaming facility.
This has helped the Tribe to realize its goals of self-sufficiency and
limited reliance on federal resources.
Despite this improvement in the Tribe's economic conditions, Tribal
members' sacrifice to move off-Reservation has resulted in the adverse
consequence of significant loss of the Tribe's culture, language, and
community, since its members have not been able to reside together on
Tribal lands.
In short, the Tribe desperately needs additional trust lands so
that it may preserve and protect its cultural sites, and develop
housing for its members, a health clinic, a grocery store, Tribal
administrative offices, law enforcement, educational services, and
other community resources in service of the Tribe's members.
Additional trust lands are essential to the Tribe's efforts to
restore its ancestral land base, to ensure that its most culturally
sacred sites are safeguarded, to bring its members, who are now
dispersed throughout San Diego County and beyond, home to reside on
Tribal trust lands, and to provide essential services to its people.
Development of trust lands is an important piece of the Tribe's overall
plan for restoration and protection of its culture. The Tribe believes
that bringing its members back together, and providing those members
with access to their cultural sites and to improved services and
resources, is vital to ensure the Tribe's continued exercise of self-
determination.
H.R. 6443 therefore accepts four parcels of land, totaling
approximately 172.1 acres located in rural San Diego County,
California, into trust for the benefit of the Jamul Indian Village of
California. The Tribe purchased and holds fee simple title to these
lands.
Fee-to-Trust Parcels
The first of these four parcels totals 161.23 acres of land held in
fee by the Tribe. This land is located proximate to the Tribe's
Reservation, and is within the Tribe's ancestral territory. The Tribe
hopes to use this property to develop housing for Tribal members, and
for Tribal administrative offices, a health clinic, child-care center,
educational services to Tribal members, a community center, law
enforcement offices and other community resources in service of Tribal
members. Placement of this land into trust will support the Tribe's
efforts in cultural and community restoration, and will bring Tribal
members home to a place they can occupy together.
Parcel 2 totals approximately 6 acres, is owned in fee by the
Tribe, and lies nearly 1,000 feet north of the Tribe's current
Reservation within the Tribe's ancestral territory. Placement of this
property into trust would help the Tribe to realize its goal to provide
essential services and community resources to Tribal members, which
also extends the Tribe's cultural preservation by ensuring the health
and welfare of members of the Tribe for generations to come.
The third parcel is the 4.030-acre parcel referred to by the Tribe
as the Daisy Drive property. This property is contiguous to the Tribe's
Reservation. Daisy Drive runs through this property and provides the
only physical access to the Tribe's Reservation, and to the Tribe's
church and ancestral cemetery. Placement of this property into trust
will preserve the Tribal community's ability to access the Tribe's
Reservation, and will preserve Tribal members' ability to access
cultural landmarks, all via Daisy Drive.
The fourth and final parcel listed in H.R. 6443 is the Tribe's
historical church and ancestral cemetery property. This parcel totals
0.84 acres and is contiguous to the Tribe's Reservation. This parcel
holds the Tribe's historical church and ancestral cemetery where the
Tribe's ancestors are laid to rest, and is part of the ancestral lands
that the Tribe has called home since prehistoric times. The Tribe
continues to use this property for cultural ceremonies and it remains
an essential part of the Tribe's history. Placement of the church and
cemetery property into trust ensures the preservation and protection of
this culturally significant property for future generations of Tribal
members.
Lastly, it should be noted that the Tribe will not use any of these
parcels for gaming purposes, as H.R. 6443 entirely prohibits gaming on
these parcels once they are taken into trust. The Tribe will use this
land solely for the purposes described above, in an effort to protect
the cultural identity, resources and history of the Tribe.
Conclusion
JIV is excited by the opportunities that placement of these parcels
into trust present, but restoration and protection of ancestral lands
by trust status remains most important. The Tribe has immensely
improved conditions for its people since its formal federal recognition
in 1981. I have dedicated my life to service of the Jamul Indian
Village, and I am exceedingly proud of how far we have come, but it
remains the Tribe's primary goal to restore ancestral lands and secure
protections for our culturally significant places. By passage of H.R.
6443, the federal government would be helping the Tribe to honor its
ancestors and their sacrifices in order to remain and prosper in the
place that we have always called home.
Thank you again to this Subcommittee for holding this hearing and
for your consideration of H.R. 6443, and to Representative Issa for his
tireless work on behalf of the Jamul Indian Village and all of Indian
Country. I am happy to answer any questions that you may have.
______
Ms. Hageman. I thank the witness for her testimony. The
Chair now recognizes Mr. Richard Rinehart for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD RINEHART, CEO, TLINGIT AND
HAIDA BUSINESS CORPORATION, JUNEAU, ALASKA
Mr. Rinehart. [Speaking Native language.] Good morning,
Madam Chair Hageman, Ranking Member Leger Fernandez, members of
the Subcommittee, and Representative Peltola. Thank you for
your comments this morning, Madam Chair, and Ranking Member,
and Mr. French. They actually cover a lot of what we care to
say.
I am in front of you here today wearing my traditional
tunic. The front of it is representative of Talkuna Gua Sha,
the mountain that saved our people in the time of the Great
Flood. I put this on to give you some sense of what we mean
when we say we have been here since time immemorial. Our people
have been on our land since the glaciers first came and
glaciers receded 10,000 to 15,000 years ago. We were there at
the time of the Great Flood 6,000 to 7,000 years ago. We have
been there since the valley floors were formed and before the
oldest trees ever grew. It is time immemorial.
I want to talk to you a little bit about three concepts in
Tlingit law. Haa Aani. Haa Aani literally translates to mean
our land, but it is much much more than just land, it is
talking about a place. It is talking about the mountains, the
valleys, the rivers, the beaches, the trees, the bear, the
deer, the salmon, the halibut, the berries, everything.
Everything in our place is Haa Aani. This is our land.
Another concept I want to bring up is at.oow. This tunic is
actually the at.oow of my clan, it is owned by my clan. The
symbols on it are owned by my clan. Other clans don't dispute
this, they know it belongs to us. NAGPRA brings up at.oow and
they recognize sacred objects when they are talking about
artwork, whether it is totem poles, or blankets, or carved
hats. But what it doesn't realize is the most fundamental
important thing is the land is part of our at.oow. Oftentimes,
land was paid for in blood and that is sacred to us. Our people
are buried there, our people have lived there for generations.
The at.oow is important.
Another third concept I want to bring up, and I won't keep
going, but this is an important one, too. It is called Haa
Shuka. It is kind of a yesterday, today, and tomorrow. But what
it is really talking about are our ancestors, all of us here
today, and all future generations that are not born.
And the reason I bring this up is because this fight has
been going on for a long, long time. It was started by my
grandparents, and my father's uncle, my father on to me today,
and it will go on to my children and grandchildren, but we hope
they never have to be here to testify and fight for this.
I want to quickly run through the legislative history. In
1867, Russia sells Alaska to the United States. In 1890, Chief
Jakes VI hires Willoughby Clark and sends him to Washington, DC
to lobby the President and Congress for lands improperly taken.
In 1920, in the ANB Hall in Haines, Alaska, they pass a
resolution to sue for lands improperly taken. In 1930, in
Wrangell, the Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida Indian
Tribes of Alaska are formed to sue for our land taken.
In the 1940s, Tlingit attorney William Paul sues the United
States and wins the case in the appeals court, but that is
later overturned by Congress so that in the 1950s, he brings
Tee-Hit-Ton v. United States to the Supreme Court, but
unfortunately loses. In 1968, Tlingit and Haida settles for
$7.5 million for lands improperly taken. All the way up to
1971, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.
The Southeast Tribes are discriminated against and not
given land to the level of the other tribes in Northern Alaska
where they received three to seven townships, and the 10 tribes
in Southeast Alaska do not have appeal rights to appeal. And
that is a lot of why I am here today and why we have this bill,
because only Congress can fix this. Through the Supreme Court
case of Tee-Hit-Ton v. United States, we have to come to
Congress to settle this.
And in 1972, when three of our communities realized that
they had not been included in the bill, they appealed, only to
find out they do not have appeal rights under the proper
section of the law.
So, we are only asking for half of 1 percent of our
original homelands. It is a very, very small piece. You can
correct this injustice. This is up to you, and we would
appreciate your help and support with our bill.
[Speaking Native language.] I am here to answer any
questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rinehart follows:]
Prepared Statement of Richard (Tashee) Rinehart, on Behalf of the
Southeast Alaska Landless Native Communities
on H.R. 4748
Chair Hageman, Ranking Member Leger Fernandez, and Members of the
Subcommittee:
Thank you for inviting me to speak to you today regarding H.R.
4748, the Unrecognized Southeast Alaska Native Communities Recognition
and Compensation Act. I am here representing the Southeast Alaska
Landless Native Communities. This legislation would redress a historic
injustice in the context of Congress's efforts to settle aboriginal
lands claims in Alaska. I look forward to answering any questions
Committee Members may have about our communities, our struggle for
justice, or this legislation.
My name is Richard Rinehart. I am Tlingit/Raven, Kiks.adi (Frog
clan), Gagaan Hit (Sun House), Teeyhittaan yadi (child of), and Haida.
My Tlingit names are Du aani Kax Naalei and Tashee.
I was born and raised in Kaachxana aakw or Wrangell, Alaska, one of
the five ``landless'' Native communities left out of the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (ANCSA). I was a child when ANCSA passed.
The legislation was debated around my kitchen table. This legislation
is deeply personal to me, as it will rectify the injustice that the
Native people from my community--along with those from the four other
landless communities--have faced for more than 50 years. It will return
a tiny sliver of our ancestral homelands to our communities.
Background and Context for Legislation
H.R. 4748, the Unrecognized Southeast Alaska Native Communities
Recognition and Compensation Act, would redress the omission of five
Alaska Native communities from the settlement of aboriginal land claims
in Alaska.
When Congress settled the land claims of the Alaska Native people
in 1971, Congress elected to establish 12 ``regional'' Alaska Native
Corporations and approximately 200 ``village'' and ``urban'' Alaska
Native Corporations throughout the state. Through ANCSA, Congress
transferred more than 44 million acres of land to the new Alaska Native
Corporations, and these Native Corporations were directed by Congress
to provide for the economic, social, and cultural well-being of their
Alaska Native owners.
For all regions of Alaska except the Southeast Alaska region,
Native villages presumed to be eligible to establish Village
Corporations were listed in Section 11 of ANCSA. Section 11 of ANCSA
also included language allowing any village not listed in Section 11 to
appeal their status to the Secretary of the Interior.
Because the U.S. Court of Claims had previously authorized a small
(and partial) monetary settlement for the Tlingit and Haida people of
Southeast Alaska in 1968, Congress addressed the Southeast villages in
a separate section of ANCSA--Section 16. Ten Southeast Alaska villages
were listed in Section 16 and--due to the partial settlement in 1968--
each village was limited to receiving just one township (23,040 acres)
of land. (Native communities in other regions of Alaska were authorized
to select between 3-7 townships of land.) However, unlike Section 11,
Section 16 did not include language authorizing any village not listed
to appeal their status to the Secretary.
Our five communities--the Alaska Native communities that predated
the current municipalities of Haines, Ketchikan, Tenakee, Petersburg,
and Wrangell--were left off the list of Native communities authorized
to establish Alaska Native Corporations despite the fact that nearly
3500 Alaska Native individuals were enrolled by the Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA) to our communities. Three of our communities appealed to
the Department of the Interior, but the Department concluded that
Section 16 of ANCSA did not establish a right of appeal for Southeast
communities. Our only recourse was to return to Congress to seek
legislation to be included in ANCSA.
In an attempt to understand why our five communities were left out
of ANCSA, Congress in 1991 directed the Department of the Interior to
produce a study examining the historical and legislative record
relevant to each of our five communities. The Department contracted
with the University of Alaska's Institute of Social and Economic
Research (ISER) to produce a report. The 128-page ISER report,
published in 1994, outlines the long history of each of our communities
as a Native community. The report provides no policy recommendations
but makes clear that Congress did not give a reason for leaving our
five communities out of ANCSA.
The Unrecognized Southeast Alaska Native Communities Recognition
and Compensation Act would create ``urban'' Alaska Native Corporations
for each our five communities and authorize the conveyance of one
township (23,040 acres) of land to each, just as ANCSA in 1971
authorized for every other Alaska Native community in Southeast Alaska.
The five townships (115,200 acres) of land involved in this
legislation necessarily would be withdrawn from the 17-million acre
Tongass National Forest, which comprises most of the federal lands in
Southeast Alaska. (Glacier Bay National Park is the only other
significant unit of federal land in the region.)
The fact that our five communities all are located within the
Tongass National Forest has been a challenge for us in our efforts to
seek redress. Our five communities appear to have been excluded from
ANCSA because the Forest Service and the timber industry were
historically opposed to aboriginal land claims in the Tongass. We
briefly address this history below and we have provided a more detailed
history as well, attached.
For decades prior to the passage of ANCSA, the Forest Service
opposed the recognition of traditional Indian use and aboriginal title
in the Tongass National Forest. As late as 1954, the Forest Service
formally recommended that all Native claims to the Tongass be
extinguished because of continuing uncertainty affecting the timber
industry in Southeast Alaska.\1\ Our communities all were located near
sawmills and pulp mills in the 1960s, prior to the passage of ANCSA.
There was a concern at that time that the Native peoples would lock up
the land, blocking access to the timber industry. In other words, our
communities were a serious inconvenience in the context of federal
efforts to address aboriginal land claims in Southeast Alaska.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Robert Baker, Charles Smythe and Henry Dethloff, A New
Frontier: Managing the National Forests in Alaska, 1970-1995 31 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 1940s, the Tlingit leader and attorney William Paul, who was
from Wrangell, won a short-lived legal victory pertaining to Alaska
Native aboriginal title in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Miller
v. United States, which ruled that Tlingit lands held by original
Indian title could not be seized by the government without the consent
of the Tlingit landowners and without paying just compensation. 159 F.
2d 997 (9th Cir. 1947). Recognizing that this presented a problem for
the Forest Service and the timber industry, Congress passed a Joint
Resolution authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture to sell timber and
land within the Tongass ``notwithstanding any claim of possessory
rights'' based upon ``aboriginal occupancy or title.'' Joint Resolution
of August 8, 1947, 61 Stat. 920, 921. A timber sale authorized pursuant
to this authorization was challenged by the Tlingit people. The action
ultimately resulted in the Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States
decision, in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that Native land rights
are subject to the doctrines of discovery and conquest, and ``
`conquest gives a title which the Courts of the Conqueror cannot deny.'
'' 348 U.S. 272, 280 (1955). The Court concluded that Native peoples do
not have 5th Amendment rights to aboriginal property and that Congress,
in its sole discretion, must decide whether or how to compensate Native
peoples for the loss of their lands.
The land at issue in Tee-Hit-Ton Indians involved our Tlingit
people who settled in Wrangell, one of the five communities that is
still seeking a settlement of its aboriginal land claims today.\2\ That
litigation stemmed from a decision by the Forest Service to offer up
350,000 acres of land near Wrangell for a timber sale.\3\ Ironically--
and sadly--more than 70 years later the Forest Service is still
resisting the conveyance of land to the Native community at Wrangell
because--as stated by the Forest Service just six weeks ago--those
conveyances ``will affect the ability of the Forest Service to . . .
meet[] current timber harvest goals.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Rashah McChesney, In Tlingit Land-Rights Loss, a Native
American Rights Attorney Lays Out Injustice and Hope for the Future
(Nov. 9, 2019).
\3\ Id.
\4\ See Testimony of Jacqueline Emanuel, Associate Deputy Chief,
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service before the U.S.
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public
Lands, Forests, and Mining 8 (Oct. 25, 2023), available at https://
www.energy.senate.gov/services/files/100D8EEB-E0D6-4926-9FC5-
D4E32BA97BB2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It has been suggested by some that our five communities were
excluded from ANCSA because the populations of our five communities had
become predominantly non-Native by the time ANCSA was enacted in 1971.
If that were true, it would be a poor excuse to deny Native communities
a just settlement of their land claims. But it is not the case. ANCSA
as enacted did not restrict the establishment of Alaska Native
Corporations to communities with populations that were predominantly
Native. Congress listed all other similarly-situated Alaska Native
communities in Alaska, including the predominantly non-Native villages
of Kasaan and Saxman (for which Village Corporations were established),
the urbanized village of Nome (for which a Village Corporation was
established), and the urbanized, predominantly non-Native communities
of Sitka, Juneau, Kodiak, and Kenai (for which Urban Corporations were
established). Our exclusion from ANCSA simply cannot be justified by
ANCSA itself, its legislative history, precedential concerns, or by
broader policy considerations relating to aboriginal land claims in the
United States.
We have now waited more than 50 years, and more than half of the
original ``Landless'' shareholder population has passed away waiting
for the equitable resolution of our omission from ANCSA. That's not
right. In the context of a statewide effort like ANCSA, we are a small
group. Perhaps that makes it hard for us to be heard. But nearly 3,500
Alaska Native people--or 22 percent of total enrollment in the
Southeast Alaska region--were enrolled by BIA to these five
communities. Despite our losses, our community continues to grow. Our
Landless shareholders and the descendants of our original shareholders
together have grown to a population of 4,800.
For more information about the history of the five landless Native
communities, we direct your attention to two background documents,
which are attached and briefly described below.
University of Alaska ISER Report
In 1991, Congress instructed the Secretary of the Interior to
investigate the exclusion of our five unrecognized communities from
ANCSA. In turn, the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and
BIA contracted with the University of Alaska's Institute of Social
Economic Research (ISER) to investigate why our five communities were
excluded from ANCSA. This research materialized into a lengthy report
titled, ``A Study of Five Southeast Alaska Communities'' (ISER Report).
The ISER Report provides a detailed overview of ``how the historical
circumstances and conditions of the [five] study communities compare
with those of the Southeast communities that were recognized under
ANCSA.'' You will find that the ISER Report, attached, does a good job
of detailing the history of the five unrecognized communities as
historical Native communities.
Nov. 18, 2020 Landless Testimony before the Senate Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests and
Mining
Following a November 18, 2020 hearing before the Senate Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests
and Mining on a substantially similar version of this legislation, we
prepared lengthy written testimony that provides a thorough analysis of
the claims of our five communities in the context of the broader Alaska
Native land claims movement; much of our analysis summarizes the
findings of the ISER Report. The testimony also provides answers to a
range of questions that have been asked over time about the five
communities and about legislation introduced on our behalf. The
detailed testimony is attached.
Conclusion
The Tongass National Forest is a politically sensitive place. We
understand this. But it is also true that the Tlingit and Haida people
have been pursuing a fair settlement of aboriginal land claims in the
Tongass National Forest for over 100 years.
With respect, we believe that Congress erred in omitting five of
our communities from the list of Alaska Native communities eligible to
form Alaska Native Corporations in 1971. The ISER Report, prepared at
the direction of Congress, provides a more-than-adequate documentation
of the history of our communities as historical Native communities.
In the infamous Tee-Hit-Ton Indians decision, the U.S. Supreme
Court held that the Tlingit and Haida claims to the land are subject to
the doctrines of discovery and conquest, and ``conquest gives a title
which the Courts of the Conqueror cannot deny.'' The Court concluded
that Native peoples do not have 5th Amendment rights to aboriginal
property and that Congress, in its sole discretion, must decide whether
or how to compensate the Tlingit and Haida people for the loss of their
lands. For five Alaska Native communities in Southeast Alaska, Congress
has yet to act.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Richard Rinehart, CEO, Tlingit &
Haida Business Corporation
Mr. Rinehart did not submit responses to the Committee by the
appropriate deadline for inclusion in the printed record.
Questions Submitted by Representative Westerman
Question 1. It is understood that local community members have
raised concerns around public access to the lands if they were to be
conveyed to the five new Alaska Native Urban Corporations that H.R.
4748, would allow to form.
1a) How have you addressed these concerns?
1b) How do you plan to address any future related concerns that may
arise from local community members?
______
Ms. Hageman. Thank you. And thank you for that history. It
is very interesting to know how long these things have gone on.
And as I said a moment ago, I think that one of the tasks that
we have as this Committee is to try to right some of those
wrongs, so I thank you for your testimony.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Ervin Carlson for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF ERVIN CARLSON, PRESIDENT, INTERTRIBAL
BUFFALO COUNCIL, RAPID CITY, SOUTH DAKOTA
Mr. Carlson. Thank you, Madam Chair Hageman and esteemed
members of the Indian and Insular Affairs Subcommittee. My name
is Ervin Carlson, and I am a member of the Blackfeet Nation of
Montana, and I serve as the President of the InterTribal
Buffalo Council, ITBC.
I appreciate this opportunity to present testimony to the
members of this Committee. I am here today to present testimony
on H.R. 6368, the Indian Buffalo Management Act, IBMA, and
encourage passage of this legislation to create a tribal
buffalo restoration and management program within the
Department of the Interior.
I want to express my appreciation to Congressman Doug
LaMalfa as the primary sponsor of this bill, to Congressmen
Cole and Obernolte, as well as to Congresswomen Peltola and
Torres for their co-sponsorship. I must also express my thanks
and admiration to the late Congressman Don Young, the Dean of
the House, and a hero to the American Indian and Alaska Native
people on so many issues, including the passage of this
legislation through the House in the last Congress. We should
pass this bill because the Indian people need it, but also as a
tribute to our dear friend, Don Young, as a lasting testament
to his legacy.
Finally, we are so pleased to see this legislation endorsed
by the National Wildlife Federation, the Wildlife Conservation
Society, the World Wildlife Fund, the Nature Conservancy, the
National Congress of American Indians, and the National Bison
Association, among other Indian and conservation organizations
that we have out there.
As many as 60 million buffalo once roamed these lands. The
Indian and the buffalo co-existed, and the sacred spiritual
relationship developed. To this day, you will hear many Indian
people refer to buffalo as my relative. Buffalo provided food,
shelter, essential tools, and clothing, and became an important
component of Indian culture and religion.
With the westward expansion combined with philosophy of
manifest destiny took root in this country, buffalo hunters
began first killing buffalo by the tens of thousands. By the
early 1900s, less than 500 buffalo remained. Indians lost their
primary food source, cultural practices, and independence.
Sitting Bull, the great and eloquent Sioux Chief, once said,
``A cold wind blew on the prairie on the day the last buffalo
fell. A death wind for my people.''
Fast-forwarding to 1991 when approximately 10 tribes came
together and formed the InterTribal Buffalo Council for the
purpose of re-establishing buffalo herds on our lands. An
important supporter was Senator Conrad Burns of Montana who
used his position on the Appropriations Committee to help
secure funding for the ITBC. Unfortunately, in succeeding
years, that funding has been very minimal and left to the whims
of whoever happened to be in control of the BIA in any given
year.
Today, our organization has 84 Tribal Nations in 21 states.
More tribes are joining every year, and I think we will have
one joining after today. These tribes want herds for various
reasons ranging from food security and a source of protein to
job creation, but perhaps must fundamentally for cultural
purposes.
I wish you could see what happens when we take a trailer
load of buffalo to an Indian reservation that has had no
buffalo for over a century. When we back that trailer up, open
the gate, and release those magnificent animals to a pasture,
you can look around and see grown men, Indian men and women, in
tears. You will hear yells of joy, elders singing buffalo songs
that have never been heard by their children or grandchildren.
It is the most emotional cultural reawakening I have ever seen.
H.R. 6368, the Indian Buffalo Management Act will create a
program in the Bureau of Indian Affairs to assist tribes in re-
establishing buffalo herds on Indian reservation lands. It will
also direct the Secretary to consult with tribes on matters
affecting buffalo policy on Federal lands. We hope it will lead
to funding so we can increase buffalo herd development grants.
This can help with on-reservation buffalo-related jobs and
infrastructure, including water development, range management,
fence construction and repair, construction of corrals, and
handling equipment, and pay for supplemental fee.
The IBMA will allow tribes to reintroduce buffalo into the
diets of our people to address health issues. My submitted
testimony provides much more detail on how the enactment of
this legislation will benefit tribes in helping us bring back
our sacred buffalo herds.
This is another bill to correct the wrong. I urge the
enactment of this legislation, and I thank you for being here
today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Carlson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ervin Carlson, President, InterTribal Buffalo
Council
on H.R. 6368
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
Chairman Hageman and esteemed members of the Indian and Insular
Affairs Subcommittee, my name is Ervin Carlson, and I am a member of
the Blackfeet Nation of Montana and serve as the President of the
InterTribal Buffalo Council (ITBC). Please accept my sincere
appreciation for this opportunity to present testimony to the members
of this committee.
I am here today to present testimony on H.R. 6368, the Indian
Buffalo Management Act (IBMA), and encourage passage of this
legislation to create a Tribal buffalo restoration and management
program within the Department of Interior. I also want to express our
deep appreciation to Congressman Doug LaMalfa as the prime sponsor of
this bill, to Congressmen Cole, and Obernolte as well as to
Congresswomen Peltola and Torres for their co-sponsorship. We
understand the LaMalfa and Peltola offices are reaching out to other
offices to also co-sponsor and for that we extend our further
appreciation. While he is no longer with us, I must also express my
thanks and admiration to the late Congressman Don Young, the Dean of
the House, and a hero to the American Indian and Alaska Native people
on so many issues including the passage of this legislation through the
House in the last Congress. We should pass this bill because the Indian
people need it but also as a tribute to our dear friend Don Young as a
lasting testament to his legacy. Finally, I wish to thank Chair Hageman
for taking time in her busy schedule to meet with me the last time I
was here in DC. We are also most pleased to see this legislation
endorsed by the National Wildlife Federation, the Wildlife Conservation
Society, the World Wildlife Fund, the Nature Conservancy, the National
Congress of American Indians and the National Bison Association, among
others.
Historical records indicate that in the 1840s the buffalo
population in North America was estimated at 30 million and, at its
peak, experts believe there may have as many as 60 million buffalo
across the vast landscape of what would become the United States. At
the time of Christopher Columbus' arrival in the New World, somewhere
between 7 to 18 million American Indians populated North America.
During these early years, Indians and buffalo successfully co-existed
and, a sacred, spiritual relationship developed between them. Indians
were dependent on buffalo for food, shelter, essential tools and
clothing, and the buffalo became an integral component of Indian
culture and religion. To this day, you will hear many Indian people
refer to a buffalo as ``my relative.''
As Indians were forced onto reservations, buffalo were slaughtered
by the thousands. Much of the slaughter was undertaken by the greed of
the buffalo hunters who stripped the buffalo for its hide as the
factories of the east could not get enough. More often than not, the
meat was not even harvested, while Indians forced onto reservations
could have used every ounce of it. Imagine what our ancestors must have
thought about allowing all that protein to simply rot on the prairie.
We must be honest and point out that the U.S. military believed that if
the buffalo could be eliminated, the ``Indian problem'' in America
could be solved. A US military leader who was deeply involved in the
so-called Indian Wars of the Great Plains brutally stated, ``If I could
learn that every buffalo in the northern herd were killed, I would be
glad . . . The destruction of the herd would do more to keep Indians
quiet than anything else that could happen.'' The greed of the buffalo
hunters and the strategy of the government were successful and, in the
last three to four decades of the 1800s literally tens of millions of
buffalo were slaughtered resulting in less than 500 buffalo remaining
at the turn of the century. With the demise of the buffalo and the
confinement of Indian Tribes to reservation lands, Indians lost their
primary food source, lifestyle, and independence. Sitting Bull, the
great and eloquent Sioux Chief said, ``A cold wind blew on the prairie
on the day the last buffalo fell. A death wind for my people.''
By the early 1900s, a growing number of Americans realized the
error of trying to eliminate the buffalo. President Teddy Roosevelt
played a significant role in buffalo conservation efforts in the early
1900s and then conservation began on a wider scale in the mid-1900s. By
1990, approximately 25,000 buffalo were held in public herds and
approximately 250,000 buffalo were in private herds. A small number of
Indian Tribes had also established small herds on Tribal lands. In
1991, approximately 10 Indian Tribes, committed to buffalo restoration
with approximately 1,500 buffalo among them, organized the ITBC and
approached Congress for federal funding. An early supporter was Senator
Conrad Burns of Montana. In 1992, ITBC began receiving federal funding
through Congressional earmarks. Sometimes we were included in the
President's budget and other times supported administratively but only
at the discretion of whomever was in a senior position at the Bureau of
Indian Affairs in any given year. With very small appropriations, and
funding that was never ensured from one year to the next, ITBC has
nonetheless assisted many Tribes to restore buffalo, enhance existing
herds and provide necessary technical assistance.
In an effort to formalize as a national Indian organization, ITBC
petitioned for and was granted a federal charter in 2009 under Section
17 of the Indian Reorganization Act. Today, ITBC is comprised of 84
federally recognized Indian Tribes in twenty-one (21) states with
sixty-four (64) buffalo herds, including some that are quite small. In
just the last year six more tribes have passed resolutions and
requested membership including the Bays Mills Indian Community and the
Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa both of Michigan, the
Eastern Shawnee Tribe, the Comanche Nation and the Pawnee Nation, all
of Oklahoma, and the Miccosukee Tribe of Florida. The member tribes of
the ITBC currently have a combined population nearing one million
tribal members.
For Indian Tribes, the restoration of buffalo to Tribal lands
signifies much more than simply conservation of the national mammal.
Tribes enter buffalo restoration efforts to counteract the near
extinction of buffalo that was analogous to the tragic history of
American Indians in this country. Today's resurgence of buffalo on
Tribal lands, largely through the efforts of ITBC, signifies the
survival of the revered Tribal buffalo culture as well as the survival
of American Indians and their culture.
FUNDING HISTORY
As indicated above, ITBC has received appropriated funding since
1992 in varying amounts and through various methods including the
President's budget, Congressional earmarks, or administrative action.
ITBC has approached Congress annually for funding, but actual
allocations of funding awards have been at the discretion of the Bureau
of Indian Affairs from various line items. However, the annual
Congressional appropriation to ITBC does illustrate long-standing
Congressional support and provides evidence that buffalo restoration
and management is not a limited or one-time project but is more akin to
a recurring program. Presently, ITBC enters into annual Indian Self
Determination and Education Assistance Act contracts with the Bureau of
Indian Affairs for Tribal buffalo restoration and management. However,
this contractual relationship remains tenuous without an actual
statutorily authorized buffalo program within the BIA and at times BIA
officials have recommended that we seek a Congressional authorization
for this program.
FEDERAL COMMITMENT TO TRADITIONAL FOOD SOURCES
Article XI of the 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie guarantees Tribes
access to buffalo ``so long as buffalo may range.'' The Tribes
considered this language as a perpetual guarantee. Unfortunately, like
many other treaty provisions, the Federal Government failed to live up
to this promise. Congressional adoption of the IBMA now provides an
opportunity for the Federal government to honor a commitment to
American Indians to access buffalo, similar to the commitment to Tribal
fish commissions. Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court examined the 1868
Fort Laramie Treaty and upheld Tribal hunting rights in the Herrera
decision.
The Federal government has had a long-standing and justifiable
commitment to Tribal fish commissions and treaty fishing rights
following the well-known Boldt decision. That federal district court
case gave the fishing Tribes co-management authority over salmon with
the States, access to half of the returning salmon and steelhead each
year and declared the security of Indian fishing rights was a trust
obligation of the United States. This case stands for the proposition
that all American Indians have a right to their traditional foods, and
therefore, this ruling supports a Federal trust responsibility to
return buffalo to Tribes, in the same manner the Federal government has
protected the security of Tribes to access fish. It would be helpful if
ITBC and the buffalo tribes had some degree of parity, funding-wise,
relative to the tribal fish commissions and their tribes.
INDIAN BUFFALO MANAGEMENT ACT
Adoption of the Indian Buffalo Management Act will create a program
within the Bureau of Indian Affairs that will truly help our Tribes.
While funding will depend on annual appropriations, the IBMA should
create some degree of parity with other Tribal wildlife programs.
Additionally, the IBMA will solidify the contractual relationship
between the BIA and ITBC, or individual Tribes should they choose to
seek an ISDEAA contract. Hopefully this will eliminate our present
situation where funding is so uncertain. Without funding, many current
buffalo herds would undergo a devastating impact and possibly
liquidation. Years of effort to restore and develop herds could be lost
as many ITBC Tribes have few alternate resources to assist with buffalo
programs.
The IBMA will allow ITBC to provide more meaningful Tribal Herd
Development Grants to create the necessary infrastructure to provide
buffalo to a larger segment of the Indian community. This in turn will
lead to greater self-determination and food-sovereignty opportunities
for Tribes through production of their own traditional foods and
creation of economic opportunities. An expansion of the Herd
Development Grants will increase on-reservation buffalo related jobs
and infrastructure development including water development, range
management, fence construction and repair, construction of corrals, and
handling equipment, and will help pay for supplemental feed. Increased
herd development grants will further allow Tribes to market buffalo for
economic development through branding, advertising, and developing
enough product to meet consumer demands. Tribes, unlike off-reservation
agriculture producers, have limited access to traditional financing due
to limitations of utilizing Tribal trust land for collateral. Thus,
without enhanced Herd Development Grants, Tribes remain at a
disadvantage in herd expansion and marketing.
The Indian Buffalo Management Act will enhance ITBC's ability to
serve as a meaningful partner to Federal agencies involved in buffalo
management. ITBC collaborates with the National Park Service, the U.S.
Forest Service, and the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
on buffalo management issues. However, this involvement is limited by a
scarcity in resources. The IBMA will enhance population management
through roundups and distribution of surplus buffalo to Tribes from the
Badlands, Theodore Roosevelt, Grand Canyon, Yellowstone and Wind Cave
National Parks. Translocation of surplus buffalo from those parks
(including quarantine at Yellowstone) to Tribes prevents needless
slaughter when the parks reach their carrying capacity and fulfills
restoration objectives. However, ITBC and Tribal participation is often
limited due to a lack of resources for transport.
The IBMA will enhance the objective to reintroduce buffalo into the
diets of Indian populations to prevent and treat diet related diseases
including diabetes which is prevalent. An increase in funding will
allow Tribes to have sufficient product for cultural purposes, product
to sell at reasonable costs for Tribal members and product to market
hopefully on a larger scale. Further, enhanced funding will allow ITBC
to develop concrete evidence of health benefits that will facilitate
ITBC partnerships with health programs to prevent and treat diet
related diseases in Native populations. We have built one trailer for
cultural harvest and have funding for a second trailer. The first
trailer has been very well received by Indian people on whose
reservations we have taken it. It is providing a source of protein and
connecting Indians people to cultural and harvest practices that in
some cases had almost disappeared with the demise of the buffalo.
The IBMA will reinforce on-going technical services from ITBC to
Tribes, which are currently provided by a very limited staff of three
people, for wildlife management, ecological management, range
management, buffalo health, cultural practices, and economic
development. Adoption of the IBMA will allow ITBC to enhance current
training sessions (national and regional) designed to enhance Tribal
buffalo handling and management.
Additionally, the IBMA will support ITBC staff educational
presentations to school-age youth, tribal buffalo managers, and others.
The topics of these presentations range from buffalo restoration,
conservation efforts, and the historical, cultural relationship between
buffalo and American Indians. Current funding limits outreach,
educational efforts, and staff training.
Indian buffalo herds are grass-fed and, hormone and antibiotic
free. This creates a lean final product that would help fill a niche in
meat production markets. ITBC strives to develop these markets for
buffalo meat and products for interested member-Tribes at the local and
national level. The IBMA would facilitate creation a centralized herd--
made from the member-Tribes' buffalo--in a centralized location to
create a steady source of buffalo for markets. This herd could also be
used to exchange buffalo among the member-Tribes to enhance each herd's
genetic diversity.
When Don Young first introduced the legislation, a couple of
offices asked us to meet with representatives of the cattle industry to
see if they had concerns. As a result of those meetings, we made a
number of changes to the legislation and were pleased that the industry
then told us and those congressional offices that their concerns had
been met. Further changes have been made to the bill this year to make
it consistent with the Rules of the House of Representatives adopted at
the beginning of the 118th Congress.
CONCLUSION
H.R. 5153, the Indian Buffalo Management Act, will further efforts
to restore buffalo to Tribes on a broader scale and to establish a
Tribal buffalo industry for job creation and new revenue for Tribal
economies. ITBC ultimately hopes to restore Tribal herds large enough
to support local Tribal health needs and achieve economically self-
sufficient herds.
ITBC and its member Tribes are appreciative of past and current
support from Congress and the Administration. However, we urge the
Committee to adopt the IBMA to create a buffalo restoration program and
demonstrate Congressional commitment to Tribes to access this critical,
traditional food source.
I would like to thank this Committee for the opportunity to present
testimony and I invite you to visit ITBC Tribal buffalo projects and
experience firsthand their successes. The ITBC leadership and staff
would be pleased to respond to any questions Committee members of staff
may have.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Ervin Carlson, President,
InterTribal Buffalo Council
Mr. Carlson did not submit responses to the Committee by the
appropriate deadline for inclusion in the printed record.
Questions Submitted by Representative Westerman
Question 1. It is understood that the InterTribal Buffalo Council
has constructed two cultural harvest trailers.
1a) Can you please explain how these trailers are being used?
1b) Can you provide details on the benefits of these trailers?
______
Ms. Hageman. Thank you for being here, and I thank you for
your testimony.
The Chair will now recognize Members for 5 minutes of
questions beginning with myself.
Mr. Freihage, I would like to begin with you and with
reference to H.R. 4524. In your testimony, you mentioned that
this bill can be a means to strengthen public safety in Indian
Country. Can you expand on that and how exactly the Department
thinks that this bill will improve public safety?
Mr. Freihage. I think it will improve public safety
starting with streamlining the process to make it easier to
recognize tribal law enforcement. It is ensuring the tribes
have a process that is similar to what BIA does. That will
speed up the process to ensure they have law enforcement who
can be on the streets supporting public safety.
Second, as noted, just the issue of pay and benefits is
really critical in terms of competing in a really tough market.
There are law enforcement shortages all over the country. Every
jurisdiction deals with it. By increasing the benefits that
tribal law enforcement can offer to their officers, especially
for things such as pension and retirement, that is going to
help with their ability to compete with other employers.
Ms. Hageman. I thank you for that. And then I also want to
ask you a question about H.R. 6443. We have heard from the
Jamul tribal leadership that one of the one of the parcels at
issue within that particular bill has been pending in the
administrative land into trust process at the Bureau since
August 2015. That seems like an enormous amount of time. Is
that the usual amount of time for parcels to be waiting to be
placed into trust and what could be done to speed up this
process?
Mr. Freihage. Yes, it will obviously depend across
different applications. I believe when the Administration
started, the average time was close to 3 years for the fee-to-
trust. Right now, we are at about a 2-year level, and the goal
is to get down to 1 year. The reason that it can be slow can be
related to things such as litigation, the cost of title
insurance for tribes can sometimes be challenging, sometimes
the cost-related environmental reviews.
So, the actions we are taking which have led to some
progress to date and hopefully continued progress include a
couple of things. One is we are prioritizing filling vacancies
for realty positions. And in addition to that, extra funding
for more realty positions would be helpful. The President's
Fiscal Year 2024 budget requested additional funding for realty
staff.
But we are also taking management actions. One of them is
proposed amendments to the 151 rule for fee-to-trust which
includes changes such as bringing some surveying activities
from BLM back to BIA so that you have fewer hand-offs in the
process. By having it with one organization we hope that
streamlines it. Similarly, our trust services team has
developed a tracker for every fee-to-trust application so that
all Indian Affairs leadership can track that and share
compliance and hold people accountable, and there is also an
external portal so that tribal leaders can see where their
application is, so that enables their ability to ask questions.
So, we are hoping these and some other efforts will
continue to bring that time down.
Ms. Hageman. And I encourage you to continue with those
types of actions because I think that this is incredibly
important that we speed up that process for our tribes around
the country.
Mr. Michael Erickson, I would like to ask you a question.
In your testimony, you mentioned the financial cost that the
Colville Tribe pays to recruit and train officers so that these
officers are able to conduct patrols on their own. When an
officer that you pay to train leaves, what kind of secondary
budget impact does this have on the Tribe?
Mr. Erickson. Thank you for that question. Essentially it
is just money that you are, I wouldn't say throwing down the
drain, but they go to some other municipality, so you just have
to reinvest that money again. Hence, our budget goes up, and a
lot of those end up being travel funds we don't get otherwise,
so it is just when you continue to have to reinvest in new
employees, this recruitment and retention with this new bill
hopefully keeps those employees around so we are not just
training them up.
Like Congressman Newhouse mentioned, we have really well-
trained police officers that end up going to these other
agencies because they are so well-trained and they have all the
money we invested into them, so I think it is just costlier.
Then you have a new recruit come in and have to reinvest that
money.
Ms. Hageman. Well, I hope that we can avoid that by passing
this legislation and giving you some additional tools to retain
your officers.
Ms. Pinto, I am running out of time, but I just want to
quickly ask you, what would it mean to your tribal members to
be able to return to their community and have services
available to them there?
Ms. Pinto. Thank you for the question, Madam Chair. It
would mean everything. It would mean survival, it would mean
continuing our culture and traditions, it would mean our elders
having a place to come back to, to practice in language
revitalization. It would mean the world to us.
And I know time is of the essence here and you want to do
the right thing. I feel that I am hurrying and my Council is
hurrying. I brought an elder here and we want this done, we
want the wrongs of the past to be corrected, as you continue to
state, and I appreciate that so much.
It would mean our survival and continued existence. Thank
you very much.
Ms. Hageman. Well, thank you for that.
The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member, Ms. Leger
Fernandez, for 5 minutes of questioning.
Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you, witnesses. And may I say,
the testimony was so powerful, so very powerful, and the themes
that you played, the need to restore the land for everything
that it means, which you beautifully highlighted what it means.
The idea that time immemorial is not simply two words, they are
when the valleys were formed. Very, very powerful.
The need to reinvigorate, reinvigorate, what a beautiful
word, about what getting the land and having it as yours would
mean for culture and community. The need to respect the safety
of community members, and that without this we are
disrespecting the need for that safety. And to restore those
buffalo who we know were destroyed because there was a desire
to destroy the Native people. So, thank you, it was very, very
powerful.
I hope I say this right. Haa Aani. Thank you for that. And
I think when we look about the need to restore the Haa Aani,
that we are talking about a very small portion of the
aboriginal lands of the five communities. I don't want to call
it the land list. Those were your lands, so you are not the
land list, it is your Haa Aani taken from you.
Can you just describe to us, so we have that concept of how
much was the aboriginal lands and how much of that are you
seeking to get restored, Mr. Rinehart?
Mr. Rinehart. Thank you for the question, Ranking Member
Leger Fernandez. We are talking about half of 1 percent, and to
just try to give some context, the Tongass National Forest is a
little over 17 million acres, it is roughly the size of West
Virginia. And then if you throw in Glacier Bay National Park
and other properties around Southeastern Alaska, we are talking
about over 20 million acres.
115,000 acres total for the five communities would be
smaller than a small county in West Virginia. You could walk
across 115,000 acres in a relatively short period of time, but
it would take you hours and hours to drive around 20 million
acres. It is really just a very, very small, small piece.
And that is hard for a lot of people to get that
perspective of what we are talking about here, that we are only
asking for a little tiny bit of our land. And, unfortunately, a
lot of our land has been taken away and it has been taken up
over the last 50 years by the city in boroughs, by the state of
Alaska, put into conservation for wilderness areas or special
use districts, and we are not touching any of that. So, we have
been pushed further and further away and have less and less
choice as time goes by. Every year that goes by, there is less
land available to select.
Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you. And I think that does give
us the picture.
Mr. French, I know that you have those other 17 million
other acres that you are going to need to manage, so what would
your answer be to whether or not you think that this transfer
would make sense given the small amount of land, and are you
going to still be able to manage the rest of those 17 million
acres?
Mr. French. Yes, thank you. Of course, I think this is
critically important. We recognize and support that we should
be restoring these lands. It is a very, very small amount.
Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you.
Mr. French. Does it have implications to our management?
Sure, but that doesn't change the right and wrong of doing
this.
Ms. Leger Fernandez. And that is what Federal agencies are
supposed to be doing, right? It is not static. We need to not
be worried about change but say some change needs to be
welcomed and brought in.
Chairman Erickson, thank you so very much for coming in and
describing what does it mean on the ground. And I think that
this vacancy rate, like what happens when something happens? I
think you said, was it three officers at a time? So, that means
that if there are emergencies in two different parts of your
community, how does a call get made as to who gets taken care
of and who doesn't?
Mr. Erickson. Thank you for the question. You end up with
safety issues, too, for our officers. Response time could be 30
minutes to an hour, hour-and-a-half from one side of the
reservation to the other. Our reservation is a little larger
than Delaware, just as example for everyone. So, the response
time, officer safety, and our tribal member safety, if
something is going on, like domestic violence or whatever it
may be, that leads to the officer having no backup as well. So,
recruiting and retaining officers, we are about two-thirds our
total police force right now. If we get fully staffed, that
helps with safety for everybody.
Ms. Leger Fernandez. Yes, thank you so very much. And my
time has expired. Thank you for bringing it to light and giving
visual to what you are all facing.
With that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon [presiding]. Thank you, Ranking Member
Leger Fernandez. I will recognize myself for the next 5
minutes. And thank you all the witnesses for coming here today.
My first question will be for the Chairwoman of the Jamul
Indian Village. Chairwoman Pinto, in your testimony, you
mentioned the plans the Tribe has for the parcels that will be
taken into trust, including building housing for tribal
members. My question will be, what will having a larger land
base mean to the Tribe and how will this promote homeownership
and community?
Ms. Pinto. I appreciate the question, Madam Chair.
Currently, right now, my members are scattered throughout the
San Diego area and have been unable to live in community
together for 18 years. This will mean for us to be able to
revitalize our community, reinvigorate our culture, be able to
borrow sugar from one another. I don't eat sugar, but the rest
of the Council does.
COVID actually amplified the need for our social
gatherings, our cultural gatherings, and the need to be next to
one another because we can certainly feel it now. And as you
may be aware, San Diego is super, super expensive, so we need
to have this land taken into trust in order to build homes for
our people, for stability, to exercise our sovereignty, protect
our culture.
Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Chairwoman Pinto.
My question will now be to Chairman Erickson. In your
testimony, you mentioned that the Colville Tribe currently has
8 tribal officer vacancies out of a total staff of 29 officers.
Being in a rural community, what kind of challenges does this
present to the public safety of your reservation?
Mr. Erickson. Thank you for that question. It creates a lot
of issues with safety for our membership, safety for our
officers. Also, if something happens with one of those
individuals, where do they go? We had an incident last year, a
murder, where the response time was not very quick, and
catching those suspects, we had officers get injured. Luckily,
we had a lot of help with other municipalities after the
incident, but it creates just a lot of issues with safety for
our officers, safety for our membership.
Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. OK, thank you. Last month, this
Committee heard testimony from two Washington State tribes that
in recent years the Washington State Legislature has made it
difficult for state and local law officers to make arrests for
drug possession and has instead required that these offenders
be diverted to treatment multiple times before they can be
arrested. What kind of impact have these policies had on your
reservation?
Mr. Erickson. Because of the state and local law
enforcement in our area, they have not been allowed to enforce
drug possession laws with arrest. This activity bleeds over
onto the Colville Reservation and we end up being the ones that
have to deal with it. Tribal police forces are having to deal
with an influx of drug-related offenses because our neighboring
jurisdictions, until very recently, have not been able to make
the arrest for drug possessions.
I will also just add that a lot of the drug dealers seem to
find the reservation as like a safe haven where we can't end up
prosecuting them if they are on fee land and they are not on
tribal, so we are trying to get some of these things corrected
as we move forward with other stuff. But that is one of the big
things, there seems to be an influx onto the reservation. I
think every reservation struggles with something similar, when
I have talked to other tribal leaders.
Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Chairman, for your answer.
With that, I yield back. And now I will recognize Mrs.
Peltola from Alaska for her 5 minutes.
Mrs. Peltola. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would like to ask Mr. French and Tashee some questions,
and I think I will start with you, Tashee Rinehart. You
described the ways in which you and other community members
have worked with the five communities of the landless tribes in
order to address concerns that they have regarding the bill,
and I wondered if you could speak more to that?
Mr. Rinehart. Thank you, Congresswoman Peltola. The
reference you make I believe is with the communities of
Ketchikan, Wrangell, Petersburg, Haines, and Tenakee. And we
have met dozens and dozens of times with representatives from
those towns, we are from those towns, and the primary concern
that came up over and over again was access. People were
worried about can I still go pick berries in my favorite
blueberry bush, can I fish from my favorite fishing stream, can
I camp where I like to camp, can I hunt where I like to hunt,
do I have access for subsistence use.
The bill, as it is presented, has I think a little over six
pages on access, and easements, and guarantees in perpetuity
that people will continue to have access for recreational,
hunting, fishing, subsistence uses, and that is in this
legislation, and that makes this differ from ANCSA back in 1971
where those provisions were not there.
Mrs. Peltola. Thank you. And as just a little follow-up,
have your organizations been working with national and local
environmental groups?
Mr. Rinehart. Thank you again for that question. We have
met dozens and dozens of times. Primarily, we started with the
SEACC, the Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, and it took a
long time for us to kind of sit and talk back and forth
listening to each other and for them to understand that this
really is not about logging, which is their main worry and
concern, that this is really about social justice and returning
land back to its rightful owners.
And they understand something of Native stewardship. They
also understand they can't say, and I don't just mean SEACC
when I say they, excuse me, I mean the environmental
conservation community. And they realize on one side they can't
say that they are supportive of Natives and tribal governments
for backing some of the things that they are after and some of
their goals and objectives, and then on the other hand not
support this. So, I think they have all come around a long way.
Most recently, there was a letter of support from the
Wilderness Society with over a million members, and they didn't
just come out and support, they came out in very strong support
and apologized for their past positions.
Mrs. Peltola. I want to add to your comments. Wrangell, one
of our Southeast communities, experienced a terrible mudslide/
landslide, and they lost a number of lives, and folks from
their municipal government came in last week to DC. They had
had a trip planned; they weren't sure if they were going to
come. They did come, and I want to say they were saying very
good things behind your back about the work that the tribe in
Wrangell has done, they were instrumental in helping with the
emergency afterwards and making sure there was a disaster
declaration and just helpful in every way.
So, I think that is a really good reflection of the tribes
that we are talking about in these five landless communities.
And I wonder if you could just explain briefly how long you
have been working on this issue.
Mr. Rinehart. Thank you for that. Wrangell is a very, very
strong community. They recently lost a whole family, a mother
who grew up there, the father, teenage daughter in high school,
and two elementary school children, and then there was at least
one other person missing. So, it was very sad, but the whole
community comes together very strong and supports each other.
I grew up in that community. I grew up where one of our
leaders, really the father of ANCSA, William Paul, Sr., the one
that brought suit for Tee-Hit-Ton v. United States, was my
father's uncle. And I grew up with him coming to our house and
listening to them argue about land claims when I was a child. I
promised my father on his deathbed, literally, that I would
fight, and I would continue this fight.
Part of what I was explaining when I was explaining earlier
about Haa Shuka, the past, the present, and the future, goes
back to William Paul in his fight, clear back into the 1930s
when they formed the Central Council of Tlingit and Haida
Indian Tribes of Alaska in front of the ANB Hall in Wrangell on
a winter day, kind of dark, windy, wet, Peter Simpson looks at
William Paul and says, Willie, whose land is this. And he says,
it is ours. He said, whose land is it. It is our land. Then
fight for it. And William Paul took that fight, took it
serious, and took it to his deathbed.
Haa Shuka has to do with recognizing my grandmother, Gagee
and my granddaughter who carries her name, Gagee, into the
future. It has to do with recognizing my father, Yakook
Ravenbox. I am talking about the box of daylight story. It has
to do with Yakook my father and the promise I made him, and
Yakook my grandson who carries that name today. And it has to
do with this fight.
I am trying to explain to you this is something that has
been my whole life. I am 64 years old. I was 12 years old when
ANCSA passed, and I am still here fighting this today, and I
don't want my son, Gushplain or my grandchildren to have to
come fight this. We need you to pass this, please.
Mrs. Peltola. Thank you. Madam Chair, I know I am just over
my time, but I am going to forego the question to Mr. French
because it was touched on a moment ago, but I do want to thank
Mr. Carlson for his recognition of Congressman Young, and we
know that your people are made of buffalo, and we know that
every part of that buffalo is sacred, the bone marrow, the
bone, I know that you eat everything, the cartilage,
everything. So, I just want to thank you for the work that you
are doing on behalf of your people.
Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you to the sponsor of the bill,
H.R. 4748. And, Mrs. Peltola, your time has expired. We will
now recognize Mr. LaMalfa for 5 minutes to speak on his
legislation, H.R. 6368.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOUG LaMALFA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Madam Chair. My apologies for
simultaneous committees I was in that kept me out of here early
on here, so anyway, I was able to get my stuff done there and
do something right today, so I appreciate your indulgence.
I did want to speak on H.R. 6368, the Indian Buffalo
Management Act, and I am glad to work on that with Mrs.
Peltola, and I was also picking up the pieces from our great
friend, Don Young, who carried it previously.
As we know, the American Bison has had an amazing place in
our country's history, and it is certainly a complicated
history as well. Our national mammal once roamed from east of
the Mississippi well into the Western United States and more
until the 1880s, then they were hunted from an estimated
population of somewhere between 30 and 60 million down to under
1,000. The last herds of bison only existed in Yellowstone.
But through a lot of great efforts, they have rebounded.
Many private citizens under the Lacey Act and especially Native
American tribes, many of whom are now members of the
InterTribal Buffalo Council. The Department of the Interior and
the Forest Service already carry out some buffalo habitat
programs, including transfers of their surplus bison to private
owners and to tribes, but it is an ad hoc program that without
congressional authorization, could create problems that our
witnesses have been discussing here today.
Our bill would seek to create a bison and bison habitat
management program at the Department of the Interior and grant
them authority to transfer surplus bison as well. It includes
substantial protections for state and local landowners and
ranchers to protect their existing herds. This legislation will
solidify the relationship between Interior and the tribes for
the management of bison herds while allowing tribes to pursue
new commercial offerings for bison products.
So, Madam Chairwoman, from the doldrums of less than 1,000,
the American Bison has rebounded so far to around 250,000
today. I look forward to engaging in this ongoing effort and
continuing our work to restore the American Bison with
continuing responsible land management and providing new
economic markets to our tribes.
Seeing I have a little bit of time here under my 5 minutes,
I think I would launch into a question to the President of the
InterTribal Buffalo Council, Ervin Carlson. You have seen that
the Council faces a lack of a formal restoration program at the
Department of the Interior, so could you speak more about how a
formal program can help give financial security and more
dexterity to maintaining and starting even new tribal buffalo
herds?
Mr. Carlson. Thank you, Congressman LaMalfa. Creating a
permanent funding within the Department of the Interior would
help. Many years we have been here just at the whim, I guess,
of whatever funding there is available for the program coming
from different parts within the Interior and never knowing if
it is going to be solidified or be there every year. We have to
work with that as to the tribes that are asking for funding to
help their operations.
So, creating that funding there or that program within the
Interior, making that permanent, would help us to increase
hopefully in knowing that every year we do have that funding.
Mr. LaMalfa. Stability.
Mr. Carlson. The stability is really what we need there to
keep the program ongoing, as right now we are up to 84 tribes.
Every year, we have three or four tribes joining, and with the
funding that we do have and don't know if we are going to have
it, that they are asking for funding to build their programs.
Mr. LaMalfa. You are at 84 members, that leads to my next
question. What does the growth say in the last few years? How
long has the Council been around or what has your growth been
last----
Mr. Carlson. We have been in existence since 1992. Started
with 10 tribes. Throughout the years, we have grown now to 84
tribes. There is a tribe sitting here that is going to talk to
us, join right again.
Mr. LaMalfa. So, there is a lot of interest because that is
what the growth is and being part of this is a possibility.
Mr. Carlson. It is just, the interest is there, the need is
there. Every year, we are having three to six tribes that are
joining.
Mr. LaMalfa. Great. All right, I will try to follow up with
another question a little bit later, on what are the
considerations tribes are looking at if they were starting
their own herd.
I will yield for now. We will come back to that. Thank you,
Madam Chair.
Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Mr. LaMalfa. Now I
recognize my good friend, Mr. Stauber, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I
appreciate being waived on to the Committee today.
I would like to take a few minutes to address my support
for H.R. 4748, the Unrecognized Southeast Alaska Native
Communities Recognition and Compensation Act, which I am proud
to co-sponsor. I want to also thank my colleague and good
friend from the great state of Alaska, Representative Peltola,
for her leadership in introducing this legislation.
This legislation was something that our former colleague,
the late Representative Don Young, long championed. Following
his passing last year, I was honored to assume first
sponsorship of the bill, and I did not hesitate to co-sponsor
the legislation when Representative Peltola asked me to do so
earlier this summer.
Mr. Rinehart, can you share how the Southeast Alaska Native
Communities have been negatively affected by their inability to
incorporate under the 1971 law? In other words, in what ways
have these communities been short-changed because they have not
been able to incorporate?
Mr. Rinehart. Thank you, Congressman Stauber. Thank you for
the co-sponsorship. Thank you for taking up the mantle when Don
Young passed. Don was somebody I have known for decades, for a
lot of my life. And thank you for making this a bipartisan
bill, we really appreciate that.
How are we impacted? I touched on a lot about the spiritual
part already, about how that affects us by being separated from
our land and how taking it away has really left us spiritually
destitute and how this can be restored. But beyond that, there
is also the economic side that really needs to be spoke about.
When you look at the other communities around Southeastern
Alaska that have their lands and the amount of dividends,
scholarships, profits, and money that they have had for their
people and their communities compared to ours, if you go to
Huna, a very successful corporation there, I look up to them as
a leading shining star, they have built a port facility for
cruise ships to come in. There are so many jobs in Huna that
everybody that wants to work has a job. And they have to bring
people in. They have a hard time with housing.
Mr. Stauber. Yes, Mr. Rinehart, just because of time, would
it be safe to say that hundreds of millions of dollars of
economic benefit did not come your way because----
Mr. Rinehart. At least, yes.
Mr. Stauber. At least. Yes. Thank you.
In his testimony, Chief Deputy French shared a concern from
the Forest Service that the land conveyances outlined in H.R.
4748 would inhibit the ability for the Forest Service to meet
its timber harvest goals. I just want to remind Deputy French
that in the Superior and Chippewa National Forest in northern
Minnesota, you are not even allowing and putting forth the
maximum, allowable sale. Respectfully, I don't think it is a
valid excuse. To fail to finally correct this 50-year wrong, to
fail to properly recognize and compensate the Alaska Native
communities across Southwest Alaska simply because doing so
will make it harder for the Forest Service to meet its timber
harvesting goals to me is unacceptable.
These are vast tracts of forest under management by the
Forest Service, whether it be in other areas of Alaska, my home
state of Minnesota, or other parts of the country that can be
utilized to meet timber harvesting goals. It is not right to
deny these communities what they deserve.
Mr. Rinehart, do you have confidence that the Southwest
Alaska communities we are discussing today would be able to
adequately manage the forest, take part in necessary logging
activity, and otherwise properly and responsibly manage the
land conveyed to them by the Forest Service if this bill were
to pass and be signed into law?
Mr. Rinehart. Thank you for that question, Congressman. I
have no doubt.
Mr. Stauber. Neither do I.
Mr. Rinehart. We have been stewarding the land for 10,000
years, and I am sure that we can manage for a few more years.
Mr. Stauber. Yes.
Mr. Rinehart. And we have experience from the other
communities. For instance, myself, I am the President and CEO
of Tlingit Haida Tribal Business Corporation, and I sit on the
Board of Sealaska Corporation. We have a lot of experience
within our tribe and within other communities that would be
helpful. I have no doubt that we could manage it.
Mr. Stauber. Mr. Rinehart, I would just say you are a
tremendous communicator and a tremendous advocate. I have only
watched you for just a few minutes. You are in the right place
at the right time.
Mr. Rinehart. I appreciate it.
Mr. Stauber. I am sure your father would be very proud of
you right now.
Madam Chair, I just have one more question for Chairman
Erickson.
In your testimony, you mentioned that out of the 234 tribal
law enforcement programs across the nation, more than 90
percent of them have been contracted out under the Indian Self-
Determination and Educational Systems Act. The officers in that
90 percent are tribal employees and not Federal employees, thus
they do not receive the benefits of Federal pension and
retirement. Can you elaborate on the constraints the Colville
tribal law enforcement has faced as a result of this disparity
between Federal and tribal employee benefits?
Mr. Erickson. Thank you for that question. Yes, I guess
losing a lot of our officers to other municipalities, I
mentioned that earlier. If this is passed, having this would
help with recruiting a lot of younger officers.
We have a lot of younger tribal officers that are becoming
PD officers now. I think this will help with enticing them to
come and work for us and have a whole career. That is the whole
idea is to get more tribal members, too, in these positions
because they want to stay home, they want to be there, they
want to help their communities.
Mr. Stauber. As a former law enforcement officer myself, I
totally agree with you.
Madam Chair, thanks for being gracious, and I yield back.
Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Mr. Stauber. Thank you to
the witnesses.
Now we are going to finish with the questions of Mr.
LaMalfa. You are allowed 5 minutes.
Mr. LaMalfa. Am I the only one? All right, I will go quick
then.
Well, you kind of heard it already, Mr. Carlson, so I will
re-up that. When you find people applying or wanting to be part
of the program, what impediment is there, what are you hearing
from tribes that are interested in adding to herds or creating
new herds? What are the challenges or speedbumps in that
process?
Mr. Carlson. One of the biggest challenges that they do
have is the funding for all of the infrastructure that they
need to have in place to house buffalo. And one of the big
things bringing back buffalo is bringing back a big part of
their culture but also for health reasons. But the
infrastructure that I mentioned in my testimony, like fencing,
and for grass range management, waterways for these animals,
all of those infrastructures that they need is one of the big
things that having that in place, the funding for that.
Mr. LaMalfa. OK, so mainly a funding issue is what you are
hearing, mostly from tribes that would want to be part of an
expansion.
Mr. Carlson. Well, the biggest part of really bringing back
buffalo to them is the cultural part of it. That is first and
foremost. It is a part of them that has been taken away. Also
with that, a lot of issues, they want to create employment for
their tribes. A lot of tribes, there are not that many
employments within the reservations. One part of that is to
create some revenue for their tribe to help out along with
being the cultural part of it.
Mr. LaMalfa. All right, we look forward to working more
with all the tribes and expanding upon that and being
successful with this legislation. I appreciate my colleague
from Alaska, Mrs. Peltola, being a partner on it, too,
especially in memory of my good pal, Mr. Don Young.
I guess with that, the whole conversation reminds me of a
Roger Miller song from the late 1960s called, ``You Can't
Roller Skate in a Buffalo Herd.'' And we will have more
opportunities to test that hopefully with this. Anyway, I had
to do it, I am sorry.
I yield back. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Mr. LaMalfa.
With that, I want to thank all the witnesses for their
valuable testimony and the Members for the questions as well.
The members of the Committee may have some additional
questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to
these in writing. Under Committee Rule 3, members of the
Committee must submit questions to the Committee Clerk by 5
p.m. on Friday, December 8, 2023, and the hearing record will
be held open for 10 business days for these responses.
If there is no further business, without objection, the
Committee stands adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 11:46 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]
Statement for the Record
Bureau of Land Management
on H.R. 4748
H.R. 4748, the Unrecognized Southeast Alaska Native Communities
Recognition and Compensation Act, would amend the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act (ANCSA) (P.L. 92-203) to authorize the Southeast Alaska
Native communities of Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee, and
Wrangell to organize as Urban Corporations under Sealaska Corporation,
the regional corporation for Southeast Alaska. The bill also directs
the Secretary to convey approximately 23,040 acres of surface estate in
the Tongass National Forest to each urban corporation, and to convey
the subsurface estate underlying the same lands to Sealaska
Corporation. H.R. 4748 further notes that Congress intends such
conveyances to be made within two years from the date the corporations
are formed.
Analysis
In 1971, Congress passed ANCSA, which settled aboriginal land
claims in Alaska by entitling Alaska Native communities to select and
receive title to 46 million acres of Federal land. The Act established
a corporate structure for Native landownership in Alaska under which
Alaska Natives would become shareholders in one of over 200 private,
land-owning Alaska Native village, group, urban, and reserve
corporations and/or one of 12 private, for-profit, land-owning regional
corporations. Most Alaska Natives are enrolled in two corporations; the
corporation representing the community where they lived in 1970 and a
regional corporation.
Each regional corporation encompasses a specific geographic area
and is associated with Alaska Natives who had traditionally lived in
the area. For each corporation, whether village or regional, ANCSA
provided at least two potential acreage entitlements through which it
could select and receive ownership of Federal lands. For Alaska Natives
who were non-residents of the state at the time the Act was signed into
law, ANCSA authorized a non-landowning 13th Regional Corporation.
Due to a monetary settlement prior to ANCSA (Tlingit and Haida
Indians of Alaska and Harry Douglas, et al. v. United States, 182 Ct.
Cl., 130, 389 F.2d 778, 1968), land entitlements in Southeast Alaska
differ from those in the rest of the state. Section 16(a) of ANCSA
withdrew lands for 10 specific Native villages located in Southeast
Alaska, which did not include the communities of Haines, Ketchikan,
Petersburg, Tenakee, and Wrangell.
The communities of Haines, Ketchikan, and Tenakee have previously
applied for eligibility for lands and benefits under ANCSA. The Bureau
of Indian Affairs (BIA) originally determined Haines as eligible to
receive land and benefits under ANCSA but reversed its decision in
February 1974. The BIA also determined Tenakee and Ketchikan to be
ineligible.
All three appealed the BIA's decisions to the Alaska Native Claims
Appeal Board (ANCAB), an ad hoc Interior appellate board established
specifically to hear appeals on ANCSA matters. The ANCAB found that
Congress intended to grant benefits only to the 10 villages listed in
Sec. 16(a) of ANCSA and affirmed BIA's decisions. Petersburg and
Wrangell did not apply for eligibility, and none of the five villages
filed land selection applications.
As the Secretary of the Interior's designated survey and land
conveyance agent, the BLM is the Federal agency tasked with
transferring to Alaska Native corporations title to the 46 million
acres as required by ANCSA. The BLM's Alaska Land Transfer program
administers the transfer of lands to individual Alaska Natives under
the Alaska Native Allotment and Alaska Native Veterans Allotment Acts,
the transfer of 46 million acres to Alaska Native communities under
ANCSA, and the conveyance of 104.5 million acres to the State of Alaska
under the Alaska Statehood Act.
The BLM appreciates the Sponsor's efforts to resolve this long-
standing dispute regarding ANCSA eligibility for the Alaska Native
communities of Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee, and Wrangell.
The BLM would like to work with the Sponsor on several technical
modifications to address potential issues, including conveyance of land
with valid existing rights, and potentially contaminants, to the new
Alaska Native Corporations. Additionally, the BLM would like to ensure
all parcels identified are available to be transferred; and that
previous and future allocations to regional corporations are unaffected
by the bill. The BLM defers to the U.S. Forest Service on issues
related to the land designated by the bill to be transferred, as the
designated lands are all within the Tongass National Forest.
______
Submission for the Record by Rep. Peltola
The Wilderness Society
December 5, 2023
Hon. Harriet Hageman, Chair
Hon. Teresa Leger Fernandez, Ranking Member
House Natural Resources Committee
Subcommittee on Indian and Insular Affairs
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chair Hageman, Ranking Member Leger Fernandez, and Members of
the Indian and Insular Affairs Subcommittee:
On behalf of our more than one million members and supporters, The
Wilderness Society (TWS) writes to express views on H.R. 4748, which is
being heard before the Subcommittee on December 5, 2023. We
respectfully request that this letter be included in the hearing
record.
H.R. 4748, Unrecognized Southeast Alaska Native Communities Recognition
and Compensation Act
The Wilderness Society has a long, established history of
advocating for the conservation and protection of our country's
invaluable, natural places, including areas like Alaska's Tongass
National Forest. Our advocacy has evolved to include prioritizing
inclusivity and intersectionality, as well as Tribal Sovereignty and
Tribal Self-determination, acknowledging that Indigenous Peoples are a
foundational partner in stewardship and conservation of our public
lands.
While our defense of the Tongass continues, we must correct the
injustices faced by certain Native communities in Southeast Alaska. We
acknowledge that the Tongass is the ancestral homelands of the Tlingit,
Haida, and Tsimshian peoples. We acknowledge the fact that five Native
communities were wrongfully excluded from the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act when the bill was passed in 1971, and we must, at a
minimum, support efforts to correct this. As a result, we support H.R.
4748, the Unrecognized Southeast Alaska Native Communities Recognition
and Compensation Act, sponsored by Rep. Peltola, in recognition of
important equity issues that must be addressed.
We ask Congress to ensure proper capitalization of these
corporations at the outset to avoid forcing the corporations to rely on
extractive industries to fund their startup costs. Adequate initial
funding will also attempt to compensate these five communities for the
earning potential they were denied for the past 50 years.
We apologize to our Native partners for the hurt our past
opposition to this bill has caused; we continue to do the necessary
work of centering our Native partners and reflecting on how we can
better support them; and we trust in the communities of Haines,
Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee Springs, and Wrangell to continue to
steward this land as they have since time immemorial through their
newly formed corporations.
Despite this long-standing injustice, several Southeast Alaska
Tribes, including some of the Alaska Native communities affected by
this issue, continue to partner with us, including in defense of
Roadless Rule protections in the Tongass. We hope this shift from The
Wilderness Society is the first step in restoring balance in Southeast
Alaska, and we hope we can continue to build trust with our Native
partners, both in Alaska and across the country. We urge the Committee
to support this legislation.
Thank you for considering our views.
Sincerely,
Karlin Itchoak, J.D.,
Senior Regional Director, Alaska Region
[all]