[Senate Hearing 118-10]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                        S. Hrg. 118-10

                  NATIVE COMMUNITIES' PRIORITIES FOR THE 
                              118TH CONGRESS

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                      COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                             MARCH 8, 2023

                               __________

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

                               
                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
51-921 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2023                    
          
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

                      COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

                     BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii, Chairman
                 LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Vice Chairman
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington           JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
JON TESTER, Montana                  STEVE DAINES, Montana
CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada       MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
TINA SMITH, Minnesota                MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
       Jennifer Romero, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
                  Amber Ebarb, Minority Staff Director
                            
                            
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hearing held on March 8, 2023....................................     1
Statement of Senator Cortez Masto................................    57
Statement of Senator Daines......................................    63
Statement of Senator Hoeven......................................    67
Statement of Senator Lujan.......................................    65
Statement of Senator Mullin......................................    59
Statement of Senator Murkowski...................................     2
Statement of Senator Schatz......................................     1

                               Witnesses

Borromeo, Nicole, Executive Vice President/General Counsel, 
  Alaska Federation of Natives...................................    34
    Prepared statement...........................................    36
Frias, Rico, Executive Director, Native American Financial 
  Officers Association...........................................    46
    Prepared statement...........................................    48
Holsey, Hon. Shannon, Treasurer, National Congress of American 
  Indians........................................................     3
    Prepared statement...........................................     5
Lawrence, Kari Jo, Executive Director, Intertribal Agriculture 
  Council........................................................    39
    Prepared statement...........................................    41
Lindsey, Hon. Carmen Hulu, Chair, Board of Trustees, Office of 
  Hawaiian Affairs...............................................    24
    Prepared statement...........................................    26
Lozano, Hon. Thomas, Chairman, Board of Directors, National 
  American Indian Housing Council................................    16
    Prepared statement...........................................    18
Zientek, Tesia, Citizen Potawatomi Nation, President, Board of 
  Directors......................................................    50
    Prepared statement...........................................    52

                                Appendix

Blaker, Hon. Doreen, President, Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, 
  prepared statement.............................................    71
Capps, Hon. Linda, Vice Chairman, Citizen Potawatomi Nation, 
  prepared statement.............................................    72
Smith, William, Chairman, National Indian Health Board, prepared 
  statement......................................................    73
United South and Eastern Tribes Sovereignty Protection Fund, 
  prepared statement.............................................    77

 
         NATIVE COMMUNITIES' PRIORITIES FOR THE 118TH CONGRESS

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, MARCH 8, 2023


                                       U.S. Senate,
                               Committee on Indian Affairs,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:34 p.m. in room 
628, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Brian Schatz, 
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.

            OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BRIAN SCHATZ, 
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII

    The Chairman. Good afternoon. I call this oversight meeting 
to order.
    Leaders from across Indian Country, Hawaii, and Alaska, 
welcome. Thank you for joining us today. I would also like to 
extend a warm Aloha to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs Board of 
Trustees Chair, Carmen Hulu Lindsey. Thank you for your 
continued leadership to support the well-being of the Native 
Hawaiian people.
    Because we can only do our best work when we hear directly 
from the Native communities that we serve, today we kick off 
the 118th Congress by putting Native communities' priorities 
directly in the spotlight as our first order of business. As 
the strongest voice for Native priorities in Congress, this 
Committee has a responsibility to engage with and represent 
your interests, not just in Congress, but across the Federal 
Government. I always say, nothing about me without me. That 
rings especially true for the work that we do on this 
Committee.
    Our goal today is to listen and to learn from you as Native 
leaders, to hear about what is working, what is not, and how to 
pursue potential solutions. From housing to education to 
farming to finance, Indian Affairs matters are wide-ranging and 
diverse.
    Our hearing today is a real opportunity to align our 
efforts in Congress with the hard work that you are all doing 
on the ground. This Committee made historic bipartisan progress 
over the last two years to advance Federal support for Native 
communities. But that work would not have been possible without 
your partnership. Today's hearing will help us to chart a path 
forward for the 118th, build on our work, and make sure the 
Federal Government does everything it can to uphold its trust 
and treaty responsibilities to Native communities. I look 
forward to hearing from each of you today.
    I will now turn to the Vice Chair for her opening 
statement.

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

    Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Cama-i, good 
afternoon to all. I do appreciate the fact that we are starting 
this 118th Congress with this oversight, and as the Chairman 
has noted, to hear, to hear from you, to listen and to learn. 
Thank you all for being here.
    I want to extend a special welcome to Nicole Borromeo. 
Nicole is the Executive Vice and General Counsel of Alaska 
Federation of Natives. Thank you for being here. I understand, 
Nicole, your son is here, was here. I am sure he is very proud 
of his mom. We welcome him as well.
    Nicole has appeared before our Committee previously. Her 
work is outstanding in all that she does to affect Native 
people in Alaska, from civil and voting rights to energy and 
broadband. Her work leading the AFN Navigators Program has been 
absolutely critical to ensuring rural villages in Alaska are 
able to access the Federal dollars available for 
infrastructure. Thank you for all you do there.
    We were privileged last week here in Washington, D.C., AFN 
hosted what they call Alaska Days, and invited members of the 
Cabinet, members of the military leadership, to discuss how we 
protect our northernmost border in the Arctic, particularly by 
getting the right priorities resourced. I appreciated AFN's 
leadership in hosting these conversations. It really dovetails 
well with what we are talking about today.
    To advance tribal priorities, we have to understand both 
the overarching needs of Native communities but also how to 
address the unique needs across regions. Tribes across the 
Country have different sizes, land space, and service delivery 
models. Native Hawaiians exercise self-determination in 
different ways than tribes do in the contiguous United States. 
With 40 percent of the federally recognized tribes located in 
Alaska, our model of self-determination is also different, but 
is one we are very proud of for its effectiveness.
    Two years ago, we started out the Congress, as you know, 
Mr. Chair, in much the same way, examining the priorities of 
our Native communities. We heard about the disparities in 
telecom and internet access, critical infrastructure, including 
basics like clean water and sanitation and housing, lack of 
public safety, justice. We did make progress last year, and I 
am proud of the progress that this Committee made. Through 
several new laws, we are providing tribes and Native 
communities with direct access to historic Federal funding 
opportunities, making critical investments in infrastructure.
    Many of the witnesses, certainly Nicole, have on-the-ground 
knowledge of how the implementation of the infrastructure 
program is going. When agencies are setting up new programs, we 
know there are bumps in the roads. We hear about them all the 
time. But listening to tribes and tribal organizations is key 
to ensuring that the right priorities are resourced. Now that 
we are in the implementation phase of these once-in-a-
generation investments, we need to make sure the Federal 
agencies are getting it right.
    I am looking forward to learning more, to hearing directly 
from you about what is working, what is not working within the 
existing programs, and how we can help, in addition to 
understanding more about the other needs that are out there.
    Just to highlight a few of those, of course, housing 
continues to be a priority, the need for more culture-based 
education and support for our Native youth. The Farm Bill, we 
know, is up for reauthorization. So we need to know what the 
priorities are there, so that we can help advance that bill and 
do more in supporting self-determination through things like 
the USDA programming.
    A lot on the plate this afternoon. Thank you, Quyanaa. I 
look forward to us getting to work.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Vice Chair.
    Are there any members wishing to make an opening statement? 
If not, I will turn to the witnesses. I will introduce all of 
them and then proceed with the testimony.
    We have the Honorable Shannon Holsey, the Treasurer of the 
National Congress of American Indians. We have the Honorable 
Thomas Lozano, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the 
National American Indian Housing Council. We have the Honorable 
Carmen Hulu Lindsey, the Chair of the Board of Trustees of the 
Office of Hawaiian Affairs.
    We have Ms. Nicole Borromeo, Executive Vice President and 
General Counsel of the Alaska Federation of Natives. We have 
Ms. Kari Jo Lawrence, Executive Director of Intertribal 
Agriculture Council. We have Mr. Rico Frias, Executive 
Director, Native American Financial Officers Association, and 
Ms. Tesia Zientek, President of the Board of Directors of the 
National Indian Education Association in Washington, D.C.
    I want to remind our witnesses that we have your full 
written testimony and it will be made part of the official 
hearing record. Please keep your statement to no more than five 
minutes, so that members have time for questions. I will try to 
be better about enforcing the five-minute guidelines than I was 
in the previous Congress.
    Treasurer Holsey, you may begin with your testimony.

STATEMENT OF HON. SHANNON HOLSEY, TREASURER, NATIONAL CONGRESS 
                      OF AMERICAN INDIANS

    Ms. Holsey. Thank you so much, Chairman Schatz. On behalf 
of the National Congress of American Indians, thank you for 
holding this hearing today to address tribal priorities for the 
118th Congress.
    Good afternoon. My name is Shannon Holsey. I serve as the 
Treasurer for the National Congress of American Indians as well 
as the president of my tribal nation, the Stockbridge-Munsee 
Band of Mohican Indians. It is truly an honor to be here today.
    NCAI has submitted written comments for the record that 
detail a number of legislative priorities. Several of those 
priorities, for example, the need to address housing in Indian 
Country, the need to address crumbling education infrastructure 
on many of our reservations, and the need to reauthorize and 
expand the Farm Bill to allow for more self-governance and co-
management opportunities are all topics that our partner 
organizations at this hearing are likely to cover.
    Given that, I am going to talk to you about three areas 
that are no less important, but that may not be discussed as 
much elsewhere today: health, public safety, and climate 
change.
    I want to begin by talking about health care in Indian 
Country. NCAI commends Congress for recently providing advance 
appropriations for certain Indian Health Service accounts. This 
change will help protect Indian health care from harmful 
impacts of government shutdowns. We thank you and all members 
and staff of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs for their 
tireless support of this historic moment, decades in the 
making.
    Having said that, until the entirety of this IHS budget is 
provided, mandatory direct appropriations, it is critical that 
Congress not only continues to advance appropriations but 
improve them as well. Specifically, the advance appropriation 
recently enacted did not fund all IHS accounts and flat-funded 
the IHS accounts that it did include.
    While historic in its inclusion, a flat-funded IHS needs 
Fiscal Year 2024 adjustments at a minimum for fixed costs and 
staffing for newly completed facilities and should also include 
the amounts requested by the IHS National Tribal Budget 
Formulation Work Group.
    Next, I want to shift to public safety. Congress has long 
acknowledged its obligation under the trust and treaty 
responsibility to address and prevent crime in Indian Country. 
Unfortunately, inadequate funding, combined with legal history 
that has repeatedly created barriers for tribal nations trying 
to exercise their sovereignty to keep their communities safe 
has resulted in staggering rates of violent crime and 
victimization on many Indian reservations.
    NCAI applauds Congress' enactment of the Violence Against 
Women Act, VAWA, Reauthorization Act of 2022 which if properly 
funded will help address violent crime in Indian Country.
    But while VAWA 2022 was a huge victory for tribal nations, 
the Supreme Court's recent decision in Oklahoma v. Castor-
Huerta was a strike against tribal sovereignty and tribal 
nations' ability to protect tribal citizens. In response to the 
Castor-Huerta decision, NCAI adopted Resolution SAC22043, 
calling on Congress to utilize its power to meaningfully 
strengthen tribal jurisdiction and improve public safety for 
all people who live on reservations and tribal lands.
    Specifically, NCAI urges Congress to relax restrictions 
regarding tribal authority over non-Indian criminal activity to 
remove sentencing limitations and to amend Public Law 280 and 
other relevant statutes to ensure that States have no criminal 
jurisdiction in Indian Country unless they have first obtained 
tribal consent to that State criminal jurisdiction.
    Finally, I would like to spend my last few minutes speaking 
about the single greatest challenge facing not just Native 
people but all peoples: climate change. Tribal nations are 
leading the way in climate action mitigation, adaptation, and 
resiliency responses for their communities and are an integral 
part of the global and national response to the climate change 
crisis. This crisis will only be averted if we all work 
together.
    NCAI urges Congress to consider legislative climate 
responses that includes full and meaningful consultation with 
decision makers, requires tribal nations' free, prior, and 
informed consent, and includes enforcement mechanism, the 
restoration of tribal land, water, wildlife, fishery resources 
including identifying and assessing the full cost of climate 
impact on tribal lands, opportunities for co-management and co-
stewardship that support intergovernmental partnerships and 
integrate tribal traditional knowledge and climate response.
    Tribal nations must also be included in climate financing 
action to increase appropriations, grants, public-private 
financing opportunities and removal of barriers to tribal 
climate responses, including competitive grants and matching 
fund requirements. And any Federal assistance provided to State 
and local governments should also be provided to tribal 
governments through tribal-specific funding mechanisms.
    In conclusion, NCAI appreciates the opportunity to present 
Indian Country's priorities for the 118th Congress to this 
Committee. We look forward to working with the Senate Committee 
on Indian Affairs and its members during this Congress to 
advance the interests of tribal nations in accordance with the 
Federal trust responsibility.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Holsey follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Shannon Holsey, Treasurer, National Congress 
                          of American Indians
    On behalf of the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), 
thank you for holding this hearing to address tribal priorities for the 
118th Congress. I am Shannon Holsey, President of the Stockbridge-
Munsee Band of Mohican Indians and Treasurer of NCAI.
    Founded in 1944, NCAI is the oldest and largest representative 
organization serving the broad interests of Tribal Nations and 
communities. Tribal leaders created NCAI in response to federal 
policies that threatened the existence of Tribal Nations. Since then, 
NCAI has fought to preserve the treaty and sovereign rights of Tribal 
Nations, advance the government-to-government relationship, and remove 
structural impediments to tribal self-determination.
    NCAI is honored and grateful to testify in front of the 118th 
Congress, and wishes to highlight the following policy priorities:
I. Appropriations
    The funding requests referenced in this testimony are rooted in the 
promises made by the U.S. Government in treaties and agreements with 
tribal nations. The 2018 Broken Promises Report from the U.S. 
Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR) found that ``[f]ederal funding for 
Native American programs across the government remains grossly 
inadequate to meet the most basic needs the federal government is 
obligated to provide.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Broken Promises: Continued 
Federal Funding Shortfall for Native Americans, at 4, (2018), https://
www.usccr.gov/pubs/2018/12-20-Broken-Promises.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Congress and the Administration have recently taken some initial 
steps toward making good on the federal government's promises to tribal 
nations. For example, NCAI commends Congress for providing advance 
appropriations for certain Indian Health Service (IHS) accounts. 
Additionally, the President's FY 2023 Budget Request to Congress called 
for a historic shift in the paradigm of nation-to-nation relations that 
seeks to restore the promises made between our ancestors and the United 
States in several key programs. It included requesting mandatory 
funding for: IHS, Department of the Interior (DOI) Contract Support 
Costs, and Section 105(1) Tribal Leases; along with a myriad of 
investments in Indian healthcare, education, public safety, natural 
resource management, and infrastructure.
    However, there is much more to be done by the federal government to 
truly fulfill the promises made to tribal nations. Congress and the 
Administration must build on these initial steps. Accordingly, NCAI 
urges Congress to fully fund the U.S. Government's treaty and trust 
obligations. It also urges Congress and the Administration to continue 
to improve how funding is delivered to DOI, IHS and other federal 
programs that serve Tribal Nations by providing advance appropriations 
until such time that all trust and treaty obligations are accounted 
for, and provided as, mandatory spending.
A. Indian Health Service-Expand and Sustain IHS Advance Appropriations
    In an historic first, the FY 2023 Omnibus provides an advance 
appropriation for the Indian Health Service. Enactment of Advance 
Appropriations for the IHS marks a paradigm shift in the nation-to-
nation relationship between Tribal Nations and the United States. This 
change will help protect Indian healthcare from the harmful impacts of 
government shutdowns and continuing funding resolutions. Until the 
enactment of the FY 2023 omnibus, IHS was the only federal provider of 
health care that was on the regular, annual discretionary 
appropriations process. We thank all the members and staff of the 
Senate Committee on Indian Affairs for their tireless support for this 
historic moment, decades in the making.
    Until the entirety of the IHS budget is provided mandatory direct 
appropriations, it is critical that Congress continue advance 
appropriations. Advance appropriations for the IHS are consistent with 
the trust and treaty obligations reaffirmed by the United States in the 
Indian Health Care Improvement Act. The advance appropriation enacted 
in the FY 2023 Omnibus excluded certain accounts in the IHS budget and 
flat-funded the IHS accounts that it did include. While historic in its 
inclusion, a flat-funded IHS needs FY 2024 adjustments, at a minimum, 
for fixed costs and staffing for newly completed facilities and should 
also include the amounts requested by the IHS National Tribal Budget 
Formulation Workgroup. The IHS need-based funding cost estimate for 
Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 is approximately $51.4 billion, and the cost 
estimate for FY 2025 is approximately $53.8 billion. \2\ Additionally, 
IHS advance appropriations should be expanded to include all IHS 
accounts and must be sustained until Congress fulfills its duty the way 
it was intended-as a mandatory obligation in performance of a 
bargained-for exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Workgroup publications available at: https://www.nihb.org/
legislative/budget_formulation.php, accessed on: February 26, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Both IHS and Tribal Nations have the collaborative tools to produce 
reliable advance appropriation requests and implement full year advance 
appropriations. For this appropriations cycle, Tribes have already 
provided official input on the FY 2025 budget to IHS with 
representatives of the Office of Management and Budget in attendance. 
This budget will be presented to the Department of Health and Human 
Services in April of this year.
B. Department of the Interior-Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
    The BIA is one of the primary agencies responsible for providing 
services throughout Indian Country, either directly or through compacts 
or contracts with tribal nations. The operation of these programs and 
services is essential for the health, safety, and social and economic 
well-being of tribal and surrounding communities. Unfortunately, 
chronic underfunding of tribal programs perpetuates systemic issues in 
Indian Country that could be reduced or eliminated by funding tribal 
programs in amounts that meet the federal government's treaty and trust 
obligations to Tribal Nations.
    NCAI recommends $20.695 billion for Indian Affairs programs in FY 
2024, consistent with the official FY 2024 recommendation of the 
Tribal/Interior Budget Council (TIBC). \3\ Within TIBC's FY 2024 
recommendations are robust increases for all base-funded programs, and 
additional funding to address public safety and justice in tribal 
communities; the economic and social wellbeing of our citizens and all 
those who visit or do business in our communities; the backlog of 
school, community, and government infrastructure construction and 
maintenance; taking land into trust; and addressing climate resiliency 
in tribal communities and on Indian and federal lands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ TIBC Tribal Representatives' FY 2024 Budget Submission to the 
Department of the Interior, May 16, 2022, accessed at: https://
res.cloudinary.com/ncai/image/upload/v1661949853/tibc-documents/
march2022/004_-_TIBC_FY_2024_Budget_Submission.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
    As place-based peoples, Tribal Nations have sacred histories and 
maintain cultural practices that tie them to their current land bases 
and ancestral territories. As a result, tribal peoples directly, and 
often disproportionately, suffer from the impacts of environmental 
degradation. 50 years after the passage of the Clean Water Act, only 47 
of 82 eligible Tribal Nations have EPA-approved water quality 
standards, \4\ which are a cornerstone of the Clean Water Act. Given 
the disparate access of tribal communities to safe, clean water, NCAI 
recommends a five percent tribal set-aside for each of the National 
Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) and the National Clean 
Water Act State Revolving Fund (SRF).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Actions on Tribal Water 
Quality Standards and Contacts, https://www.epa.gov/wqs-tech/epa-
actions-tribal-water-quality-standards-and-contacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Additionally, NCAI recommends $100 million be appropriated for the 
EPA Tribal General Assistance Program and $30 million for the Tribal 
Air Quality Management Program.
D. Hold Harmless for DOI--Indian Affairs, IHS and Other Programs for 
        the Benefit of Tribal Nations
    The DOI-Indian Affairs and IHS budgets are very small when compared 
to the overall national budget. Spending cuts or other budget control 
measures that affect tribal programs can have devastating impacts on 
tribal nations and their citizens but would have little impact on 
overall federal spending. To the extent Congress considers funding 
reductions in FY 2024, DOI-Indian Affairs, IHS and other programs for 
the benefit of Tribal Nations must be held harmless.
II. Infrastructure
A. Housing
    Housing infrastructure in Indian Country continues to lag behind 
the rest of the United States. Over 70 percent of existing housing 
stock in tribal communities is in need of upgrades and repairs, many of 
them extensive. \5\ In 2017, The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 
Development (HUD) reported that, ``the lack of housing and 
infrastructure in Indian Country is severe and widespread, and far 
exceeds the funding currently provided to tribes.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Fiscal Year 
2017 Congressional Justifications, 11-12, (2016), https://www.hud.gov/
sites/documents/FY_2017_CJS_COMBINED.PDF.
    \6\ Broken Promises Report, at 137, (2018), https://www.usccr.gov/
pubs/2018/12-20-Broken-Promises.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The lack of affordable housing contributes to homelessness and 
overcrowding. Tribal communities experience overcrowded homes at a rate 
of 16 percent, roughly eight times the national average. \7\ HUD 
research also shows that such overcrowding has a negative effect on 
family health and contributes to the ongoing problems of domestic 
violence and poor school performance in Indian Country. \8\ Funding new 
construction across the board will help alleviate issues of 
overcrowding. In addition to the historic funding shortfalls, the 
location of many tribal communities increases the material and labor 
costs of home construction and impose additional housing development 
costs upon communities already confronting enormous economic 
challenges. \9\ Building materials must often be brought into tribal 
communities from miles away over substandard roads or even by air, and 
the availability of ``qualified and affordable contractors'' is 
limited. \10\ Given these extensive funding needs, it is critical that 
Congress support (1) reauthorization of NAHASDA; (2) permanently 
reauthorize the Tribal HUD-VASH Program; and (3) introduce and pass 
legislation that aims to increase homeownership rates in Indian 
Country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Housing Needs 
of American Indians and Alaska Natives in Tribal Areas: A Report From 
the Assessment of American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian 
Housing Needs, (2017), https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/
files/pdf/HNAIHousingNeeds.pdf.
    \8\ Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Fiscal Year 
2017 Congressional Justifications, 11-4, https://www.hud.gov/sites/
documents/FY_2017_CJS_COMBINED.PDF.
    \9\ Broken Promises Report, at138, (2018), https://www.usccr.gov/
pubs/2018/12-20-Broken-Promises.pdf.
    \10\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Reauthorize NAHASDA and Increase Funding for IHBG Formula Grants
    The Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act 
(P.L. 104-330) (NAHASDA), first enacted in 1996, authorized Tribal 
Nations to self-determine their housing programs. It gave flexibility 
for Tribal Nations to develop, construct and maintain housing for their 
members, transforming how federal housing programs addressed housing 
needs in tribal communities. NAHASDA consolidated existing housing 
funds into a single block grant--the Indian Housing Block Grant 
(IHBG)--resulting in tens of thousands of additional housing units 
being constructed, as well as increased tribal capacity to address 
related infrastructure and economic development challenges. The IHBG is 
a formula-based grant that provides certainty and security for long-
term housing and community development. Unfortunately, NAHASDA funding 
has only increased 31 percent, from $600 to $787 million since 1998. 
Tribal Nations need $1.1 billion just to keep pace with inflation over 
20 years. Meanwhile, the total HUD budget has nearly tripled in 20 
years, from $23 million in 1998 to $70.5 million today. \11\ IHBG is 
failing to even keep pace with inflation while costs continue to 
increase and a housing crisis overwhelms tribal housing entities. \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ National American Indian Housing Council, ``Legislative 
Priorities in the 118th Congress'', (2023).
    \12\ U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Fiscal Year 
2017 Congressional Justifications, 11-12, (2016), https://www.hud.gov/
sites/documents/FY_2017_CJS_COMBINED.PDF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the 117th Congress, Senator Brian Schatz introduced S. 2264: The 
NAHASDA Reauthorization Act of 2021. S. 2264 proposed to reauthorize 
NAHASDA programs through 2032, create an Assistant Secretary for Indian 
Housing at HUD, and update several key provisions including: re-
establishing a Drug Elimination program for tribal communities; 
streamlining environmental review requirements; allowing housing 
assistance for students; recognizing tribal sovereignty to govern 
maximum rent requirements; allowing tribal housing programs to access 
IHS sanitation funding; tribal eligibility for HUD Housing Counseling 
and Homelessness Assistance grants; and reauthorizing Native Hawaiian 
housing programs. NCAI strongly urges Congress to reintroduce and pass 
legislation that reauthorizes NAHASDA through 2032 \13\ and provides 
increased funding appropriations for IHBG formula grants upwards of $1 
billion to help address the ongoing housing crisis in Indian Country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ NCAI Resolution PDX-20-055, NAHASDA Reauthorization, 2020, 
https://www.ncai.org/attachments/
Resolution_zLcDLBJjazSdLkmeWKIMhDmfuqZKQgveoNYpUaKaMUwGZFk NYzw_PDX-20-
055%20SIGNED.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Permanently Reauthorize the Tribal HUD-VASH Program
    Native veterans have a long history of distinguished service to 
this country. Per capita, they serve at a higher rate in the Armed 
Forces than any other group of Americans and have served in all the 
nation's wars since the Revolutionary War. Native veterans have even 
served in several wars before they were even recognized as U.S. 
citizens or eligible to vote. Despite this esteemed service, 
homelessness is a concern for our Native veterans. To combat this 
issue, Congress created the HUD-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing 
(HUD-VASH) program. The program has been a nationwide success because 
it combines rental assistance, case management, and clinical services 
for at-risk and homeless veterans. Unfortunately, this program is not 
fully available to Native veterans living on tribal lands.
    In the 117th Congress, S. 5140 was introduced, which would codify 
and make permanent the Tribal HUD-VASH program within the larger HUD-
VASH program and ensure adequate funding for the program. In addition, 
the bill would make all Tribal Nations and their tribal housing 
programs eligible for the HUD-VASH program, which to date has remained 
limited to the original 26 recipients. The bill would also call on IHS 
to assist the program as requested by HUD or the Department of Veterans 
Affairs (VA). NCAI has a standing resolution supporting this 
legislation. \14\ Accordingly, NCAI urges this Committee to pass 
similar legislation early in the 118th Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ NCAI Resolution ECWS-14-001, Support for Indian Veterans 
Housing Rental Assistance Demonstration Program in the Native American 
Housing and Self-Determination Act Reauthorization https://
www.ncai.org/attachments/
Resolution_rGJmzKMOpmPXCODBFDEimNAVXIDwbXbVyXGHmPeVbMNx lCXSRjF_ECWS-
14-001%20resolution.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Support Legislation for Increased Homeownership in Indian Country
    American Indians and Alaska Natives (AI/ANs) on tribal lands or in 
remote areas face significant barriers to homeownership. These barriers 
include AI/ANs having some of the highest rates of unemployment and 
poverty, lacking access to credit services, and lacking education about 
what it takes to become a homeowner. In 2019, the Federal Deposit 
Insurance Corporation (FDIC) found that 16.3 percent of AI/AN 
households were unbanked, compared to only 5.4 percent of the general 
population. \15\ Banks and credit institutions are less likely to have 
branches in tribal areas, which is due in part to the jurisdictional 
complexity of lending on tribal lands. A 2016 Native Nations Institute 
study found that Indian Country faces ``high interest rates on loans, 
the inability to use trust land as collateral on loans, and a general 
unwillingness on the part of financial institutions to lend to 
reservation-based applicants.'' \16\ Economic and social constraints 
like lower borrower incomes and limited or blemished credit histories 
broadly impede the expansion of mortgage credit to underserved 
populations. \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, How American Banks: 
Household Use of Banking and Financial Services, 2019 FDIC Survey, 
https://www.fdic.gov/analysis/household-survey/2019report.pdf.
    \16\ Native Nations Institute. 2016. Access to Capital and Credit 
in Native Communities (digital version). Tucson, AZ: Native Nations 
Institute, available at: https://nni.arizona.edu/application/files/
8914/6386/8578/Accessing_Capital_and_Credit_in_Native_Communities.pdf.
    \17\ HUD, Mortgage Lending on Indian Land: A Report From the 
Assessment of American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian 
Housing Needs, p. vii, (2017), https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/
default/files/pdf/NAHSG-Lending.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the 117th Congress, there were several legislative proposals 
introduced to address the lack of homeownership among Native Americans 
and Alaska Natives. Among these proposals, S. 70: The Tribal Trust Land 
Homeownership Act of 2023, has already been re-introduced by Senator 
John Thune. This bill seeks to improve the BIA land title procedures 
for home loans on trust lands. The unique status of trust lands being 
inalienable makes it difficult for private lenders to obtain security 
interests in individual plots and most private lenders are uneducated 
on what practices they can employ to lend to AI/ANs residing on tribal 
lands. \18\ This makes lenders reluctant to lend to either individual 
AI/ANs, Tribal Nations, and Tribally Designated Housing Entities (TDHE) 
interested in developing housing. Further exacerbating the issue, the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs must review all trust land leases and provide 
verification of land ownership via a title status report. This 
verification has historically taken several weeks, months, or even 
years to complete. \19\ This bill would set forth requirements for 
response times for certain reports required by the BIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Lending on Native 
American Land: A Guide for Rural Development Staff, (2006), http://
www.ruralhome.org/storage/documents/nativeamerguideforusda.pdf.
    \19\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Additionally, S. 4505: The [Veterans Administration (VA)] Native 
American Direct Loan Improvement Act, introduced by Senators Rounds and 
Tester in the 117th congress, is a bi-partisan bill that proposes to 
increase the number of home loans to Native Veterans returning home. 
The VA's NADL program has only provided 190 loans to Native Americans 
nationwide over the past 10 years. This legislation would help to 
increase the number of NADL-administered loans by allowing veterans to 
refinance existing non-VA mortgages utilizing the NADL product, and 
would also allow veterans who have built homes with other sources of 
construction financing (e.g. a Native CDFI loan) to still use NADL as 
permanent financing. It also provides grant funding for Native CDFIs, 
Tribal Nations, Tribally Designated Housing Entities (TDHEs), and 
nonprofits to assist with outreach, homebuyer education, and other 
technical assistance to Native veterans seeking homeownership 
financing.
    Finally, last session's S. 2092: The Native American Rural Home-
ownership Improvement Act utilizes Native CDFIs to deploy USDA Section 
502 Single Family Home Loan funds to Native Americans. Support for 
Native CDFIs is essential to solving low rates of lending and 
homeownership on tribal lands. They provide extensive financial and 
homebuyer education to help their clients become self-sufficient 
private homeowners. The proposed expanded relending pilot program would 
increase the flow of mortgage capital to Indian Country by allowing 
Native CDFIs to be eligible borrowers under the 502 Direct Loan Program 
and enable them to relend to eligible families for the construction, 
acquisition, and rehabilitation of affordable housing. While this last 
bill does not fall neatly into the jurisdiction of the Senate Committee 
on Indian Affairs, we strongly encourage the members of this committee 
to support this legislation and work to get improvements to USDA 
housing programs included in the 2023 Farm Bill.
B. Education Facilities
    Schools operating within the BIE system are woefully outdated and, 
in some cases, dangerous for students and staff. At the end of FY 2019, 
BIE reported 71 schools in poor condition, \20\ which puts Native 
students at a significant, unfair learning disadvantage. The current 
cost as estimated by Interior's Office of Inspector General for 
replacing or rehabilitating BIE school facilities exceeded $4.6 
billion. \21\ Further, Interior identified $629 million in deferred 
maintenance for BIE-funded education facilities and $86 million in 
deferred maintenance for BIE educational quarters. To begin to address 
this issue, Congress passed H.R. 1, the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, allocating $200,000,000 for calendar 
year 2009 and $200,000,000 for calendar year 2010 in tax credit bonds 
for purpose of construction, rehabilitation, and repair of schools 
funded by the BIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ Bureau of Indian Education, FY 2021 Congressional Budget 
Justification, https://www.bia.gov/sites/bia.gov/files/assets/as-ia/
obpm/2021%20BIE%20Greenbook.pdf.
    \21\ U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Inspector General, 
Condition of Indian School Facilities, C-EV-BIE0023-2014, 2016, https:/
/www.doioig.gov/sites/doioig.gov/files/
FinalEval_BIESchoolFacilitiesB_093016.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While this funding was appreciated, no Tribal Nations were able to 
use the ARRA tax credit bonds due to a lack of capital outlay and an 
escrow account to support the issuance of school modernization bonds. 
Tribal Nations recognize the need for adequate school facilities for 
students in their communities and have been working with the 
Administration and Congress to come to solutions for alternative school 
construction funding options under existing statutory authority. Some 
Tribal Nations have discussed and even developed a school construction/
lease-back proposal whereby the community takes over the school design 
and construction function, and, when completed, leases the facility 
back to Interior. While this is a great solution for Tribal Nations 
that have the resources and capital to complete school design and 
construction, additional innovative solutions must be made.
    In the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023, Congress allocated 
$267,887,000 to be used for construction, improvement, and maintenance 
of BIE facilities. While every dollar of funding is needed and useful, 
the reality is that a significant funding increase is required to bring 
BIE schools into parity with non-Native public schools across the 
country. Therefore, NCAI urges this committee to work with Tribal 
Nations to develop additional innovative models of funding for BIE 
school construction and related infrastructure, provided that new 
funding sources or methods must supplement and not supplant existing 
funding methods.
C. Hold Oversight Hearings on Infrastructure Bill Funding
    As we rapidly approach the two-year anniversary of the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), NCAI encourages the 
Senate Committee on Indian Affairs to hold several oversight hearings 
on IIJA funding that is being deployed to Tribal Nations. IIJA included 
a record number of program eligibility and spending amounts allocated 
to Tribal Nations, and while the deployment of such large amounts takes 
time, we must be steadfast in our efforts to ensure that this funding 
is being deployed in the most effective and efficient manner possible. 
We encourage SCIA to hold oversight hearings on IIJA, including but not 
limited to: broadband funding in Indian Country, the Indian Water 
Rights Settlement Completion Fund, and clean drinking water and water 
infrastructure funding through the EPA and Department of the Interior. 
This funding for infrastructure is a once in a lifetime opportunity to 
deliver infrastructure funding to the communities who need it most. 
Congress has a responsibility to ensure that Tribal Nations are not 
only receiving the funding in a timely manner, but also receiving the 
technical assistance and guidance necessary to make the most of this 
historical funding.
III. Public Safety and Justice
A. Funding
    Among the fundamental components of the federal government's treaty 
and trust responsibilities to Tribal Nations is the obligation to 
protect public safety on tribal lands. Congress has long acknowledged 
this obligation, which Congress reaffirmed in the Tribal Law and Order 
Act (TLOA) expressly ``acknowledging the federal nexus and distinct 
federal responsibility to address and prevent crime in Indian 
Country.'' \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ Tribal Law and Order Act, 34 U.S.C.  10381(j).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The inadequate funding for tribal criminal justice and public 
safety has resulted in staggering rates of violent crime and 
victimization on many Indian reservations. A Department of Justice 
(DOJ) study found that more than four in five American Indian and 
Alaska Native (AI/AN) adults have experienced some form of violence in 
their lifetime. \23\ Among AI/AN women, 55.5 percent have experienced 
physical violence by intimate partners in their lifetime, and 56.1 
percent have experienced sexual violence. \24\ NCAI appreciates 
Congress' enactment of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) 
Reauthorization Act of 2022, which will help address violent crime in 
Indian Country, as it provides resources for the exercise of, and 
affirms, tribal nations' authority to address crime in their 
communities. Going forward, robust funding for these VAWA-related 
programs and tribal police departments and justice systems is 
absolutely essential for improving public safety on the ground in 
tribal communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ U.S. Department of Justice, Violence Against American Indian 
and Alaska Native Women and Men: 2010 Findings from the National 
Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, 2, (2016), https://
www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/249736.pdf.
    \24\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The underfunding of tribal law enforcement and justice systems is 
well-documented. In 2022, BIA submitted a report to Congress (for FY 
2019) estimating that to provide a minimum base level of service to all 
federally recognized tribal nations: $1.3 billion is needed for Tribal 
Law Enforcement Programs, $1.2 billion is needed for Tribal Courts, and 
$240.6 million is needed to adequately fund existing Detention Centers. 
\25\ FY 2023 funding levels fall far short of BIA's estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ U.S. Department of the Interior, Report to Congress on 
Spending, Staffing, and Estimated Funding Costs for Public Safety and 
Justice Programs in Indian Country, 2019, at 5 (Oct. 2021), https://
www.bia.gov/sites/default/files/dup/assets/bia/ojs/ojs/pdf/
2019%20TLOA%20Report%20Final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Due to the inadequacy of BIA base funding, tribal nations often 
seek short-term, competitive grants to try to make up a portion of the 
shortfall. This is especially true with regard to funding for the non-
incarceration aspects of justice systems, such as tribal courts, which, 
are even more severely underfunded than policing and detention.
    In 2018, the USCCR found that there continues to be ``systematic 
underfunding of tribal law enforcement and criminal justice systems, as 
well as structural barriers in the funding and operation of criminal 
justice systems in Indian Country'' that undermine public safety. \26\ 
Tribal justice systems must have resources so they can protect women, 
children and families, address substance abuse, rehabilitate first-time 
offenders, and put serious criminals behind bars. Well-functioning 
criminal justice systems, basic police protection, and services for 
victims are fundamental priorities of any government-Tribal Nations are 
no different.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\ U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Broken Promises: Continued 
Federal Funding Shortfall for Native Americans, at 32, (2018), https://
www.usccr.gov/pubs/2018/12-20-Broken-Promises.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As stated above, NCAI supports TIBC's FY 2024 recommendations, 
which include $2.924 billion for Public Safety and Justice funding, 
with approximately $1.766 billion for BIA Law Enforcement and $1.155 
billion for tribal courts.
B. Criminal Jurisdiction
    Tribal communities continue to be plagued by the highest crime 
victimization rates in the country. A study by the National Institute 
of Justice found that more than 80 percent of AI/AN people will be a 
victim of intimate partner violence, sexual violence, or stalking in 
their lifetime. \27\ The study also found that 90 percent of these 
victims were victimized by a non-Indian perpetrator. \28\ The 
complicated jurisdictional framework at play in Indian Country, which 
limits tribal authority to prosecute non-Indians, continues to 
undermine safety for victims of violence in tribal communities. Tribal 
Nations are the only governments in America whose authority to protect 
their communities from domestic and sexual violence, child abuse, 
stalking, and trafficking is limited by federal law based on the 
political status/race of the defendant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\ Rosay, A. B. (2016). Violence Against American Indian and 
Alaska Native Women and Men: 2010 Findings from the National Intimate 
Partner and Sexual Violence Survey. Washington, DC: US Department of 
Justice.
    \28\ Rosay, A. B. (2016). Violence Against American Indian and 
Alaska Native Women and Men: 2010 Findings from the National Intimate 
Partner and Sexual Violence Survey. Washington, DC: US Department of 
Justice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    When Congress passed the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA 2013), it 
included a provision that reaffirmed the inherent sovereign authority 
of Tribal Nations to exercise criminal jurisdiction over certain non-
Indians who violate qualifying protection orders or commit domestic 
violence against AI/AN victims on tribal lands. However, victims of 
sexual violence, stalking, and trafficking, and AI/AN children and 
elders were left out. The historic passage of VAWA 2022 earlier this 
year included provisions that reaffirm tribal jurisdiction over non-
Indians for certain crimes involving children and elders, sexual 
violence, stalking, sex trafficking, obstruction of justice, and 
assaults against law enforcement and corrections personnel. Now, 
resources and technical assistance are required to allow opportunities 
for more Tribal Nations to exercise their sovereignty in this space.
    While VAWA 2022 was a huge victory for Tribal Nations, the Supreme 
Court's recent decision in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta overturned the 
long-held understanding that states do not have authority to prosecute 
non-Indians who commit crimes against Indians in Indian country. In 
that case, the Supreme Court held that ``the Federal Government and the 
State have concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed by 
non-Indians against Indians in Indian country'' which strikes against 
tribal sovereignty and jurisdiction to protect tribal citizens.
    In response to the Castro-Huerta decision, NCAI adopted several 
resolutions related to criminal jurisdiction in Indian Country, 
including Resolution #SAC-22-043, ``Calling on Congress to Enact the 
Legislative Proposal to Improve Public Safety in Indian Country''. \29\ 
Congress has the power to meaningfully strengthen tribal jurisdiction 
and improve public safety for all people who live on reservations and 
other tribal lands. When Congress passed the ``Duro fix'' after the 
Supreme Court's decision in Duro v. Reina, 495 U.S. 676 (1990), 
Congress was recognizing and protecting tribal sovereignty from a 
Supreme Court decision that attempted to weaken tribal sovereignty. 
Over the years, other attempts to weaken tribal sovereignty have taken 
place and in the interest of both protecting tribal sovereignty and 
public safety, now is the time for Congress to once again take action. 
Specifically, NCAI calls on Congress to relax restrictions regarding 
tribal authority over non-Indian criminal activity and to remove 
sentencing limitation by amending the Indian Civil Rights Act; and to 
amend Public-Law 280 (and other relevant statutes) to ensure that 
states, other than those six states with mandatory criminal 
jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. 1162 (a), have no criminal jurisdiction in 
Indian country unless they have first obtained tribal consent to that 
state criminal jurisdiction and, where necessary, have amended their 
state constitutions or statutes to permit that jurisdiction, all in 
compliance with procedures outlined in 25 U.S.C  1324.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\ NCAI Resolution #SAC-22-043, ``Calling on Congress to Enact 
the Legislative Proposal to Improve Public Safety in Indian Country'', 
available at: https://ncai.assetbank-server.com/assetbank-ncai/
assetfile/3164.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Child Welfare
    The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) is a 45-year-old federal law 
widely considered to be the gold standard of child welfare policy and 
practice. Since ICWA state court guidelines were updated and the first-
ever legally binding regulations were promulgated under the Obama 
Administration in 2016, ICWA has faced a wave of litigation from a 
small but well-resourced and well-coordinated group of opponents, 
including the Goldwater Institute and other conservative think tanks 
focused on states rights as well as some private adoption attorneys and 
agencies. Since 2015, the Goldwater Institute alone has filed lawsuits 
or amicus briefs in more than a dozen cases challenging ICWA.
    The most serious challenge ICWA is currently facing is Haaland v. 
Brackeen, a case filed in 2017 and now before the US Supreme Court. In 
this case Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and a handful of non-Native 
foster and adoptive parents challenged the constitutionality of ICWA. 
The most potentially far-reaching of their claims is that ICWA violates 
the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and is based on 
race. This is an intentional misunderstanding of the fact that ICWA's 
protections for American Indian and Alaska Native children are based on 
their political status, their citizenship in-or eligibility for 
citizenship in-a federally recognized tribe. The Supreme Court heard 
oral argument in the case on November 9, 2022, and a decision will be 
rendered by June 30, 2023, at the latest. Whatever the outcome of the 
case, NCAI encourages Congress to continue to work with Tribal Nations 
and others partners to strengthen Native families and to do everything 
within its power to ensure that the literal future generations of 
Native people are not separated from their communities and cultures.
IV. Farm Bill
    Agriculture is a major economic, employment, and nutrition sector 
in Indian Country. According to the 2017 Census of Agriculture, there 
were at least 79,198 American Indian or Alaska Native (AI/AN) producers 
on more than 59 million acres of tribal homelands for the production of 
crops, livestock or both. These farms and ranches sold over $3.5 
billion of agricultural products, including more than $1.4 billion of 
crops and $2.1 billion of livestock and poultry. Agriculture remains 
the second leading employer in Indian Country and is the backbone of 
the economy for many Tribal Nations.
    NCAI is a founding and executive committee member of the Native 
Farm Bill Coalition, along with the Intertribal Agriculture Council, 
the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community, and the Indigenous Food and 
Agriculture Initiative. NCAI stands with the Native Farm Bill 
Coalition, who will also be testifying, but we want to emphasize the 
need for more opportunities for self-governance, co-management, funding 
flexibility, and direct management and implementation of programs.
    The nutrition title is of particularly high importance to Indian 
Country. With 24 percent of AI/AN households receiving Supplemental 
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, 276 Tribal Nations 
administering the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations 
(FDPIR), 68 percent of AI/AN children qualifying for free and reduced 
price lunches, and American Indians and Alaska Natives making up more 
than 12 percent of the participants in the Special Supplemental 
Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) the importance 
of food assistance in Indian Country cannot be overstated. Any cuts to 
SNAP, FDPIR, WIC, or school lunch programs directly diminish the food, 
and in some cases the only meals, available to Native children, 
pregnant women, elders, and veterans. Additionally, food assistance 
programs like FDPIR must be provided the means and support to purchase 
traditional, locally grown food in their food packages. Traditional and 
locally grown foods from Native American farmers, ranchers, and 
producers encourage healthy living, cultural sustainability, and a 
return to traditional practices all while supporting economic 
development. NCAI urges Congress to support the expansion and making 
permanent of the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations 
(FDPIR), tribal eligibility to administer the Supplemental Nutrition 
Assistance Program (SNAP), and to allow the dual use of both SNAP and 
FDPIR. To realize many of these priorities there needs to be an 
expansion of 638 authority broadly across the Department of Agriculture 
(USDA) and its programs, as well as the reduction and elimination of 
match requirements.
V. Climate Change and Energy
A. Climate Change
    The cultures, traditions, lifestyles, communities, foods, and 
economies of Tribal Nations are often dependent upon natural resources 
that are disappearing faster than they can be restored because of 
dramatic shifts in weather and climate. \30\ As such, they are 
disproportionately affected by even incremental environmental changes. 
\31\ Tribal Nations are at the front lines of the climate crisis 
responding to sea level rise, coastal erosion, ocean acidification, 
increased frequency and intensity of wildfires, extended drought, and 
altered seasonal duration. \32\ These weather events have dramatic 
impacts on traditional cultural and subsistence practices and sacred 
places, tribal fisheries, timber harvesting and agricultural 
operations, eco-tourism, and infrastructure. \33\ Despite these 
challenges, Tribal Nations are leading the way in climate action 
mitigation, adaptation, and resiliency responses for their communities 
and are integral to the global and national responses to the climate 
crisis. \34\ Tribal Nations have the following, non-exhaustive list of 
priorities and goals for Congressional climate responses:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\ Broken Promises Report, at 193 (2018).
    \31\ Fourth National Climate Assessment, Vol. II: Impacts, Risks, 
and Adaptation in the United States, Chapter 15 (2018).
    \32\ Broken Promises Report, 193-194 (2018); Fourth National 
Climate Assessment, Vol. II: Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the 
United States, Chapter 15 (2018).
    \33\ Fourth National Climate Assessment, Vol. II: Impacts, Risks, 
and Adaptation in the United States, Chapter 15 (2018).
    \34\ NCAI, Climate Action Resource Center, https://www.ncai.org/
ptg/climate, (last visited, Feb. 19, 2021).

  Legislation must include full and meaningful consultation 
        with decision makers that requires Tribal Nations' free, prior, 
        and informed consent and includes enforcement mechanisms; \35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\ NCAI Resolution PHX-16-058, United States Federal Agency 
Consultation, Consent, Funding, and Actions to Address Climate Change 
Impacts to Tribal Treaty and Trust Resources, https://www.ncai.org/
attachments/Resolution_RQiEDgHAWYpzQLoUKEdwjuxDCxyGCwKeLQhGWLAKzxTUA 
AUehsK_PHX-16-058%20final.pdf.

  Tribal Nations must be integrated into Congressional and 
        Executive Branch climate planning, including on federal climate 
        committees and working groups; \36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \36\ NCAI Indians Resolution SD-15-024, Support for the Tribal 
Climate Change Principles: Responding to Federal Policies and Actions 
to Address Climate Change document and its Swift Implementation by the 
Federal Government, https://www.ncai.org/attachments/
Resolution_NZdlSoySpGDwyQAPQHLWnPZLOBFtqiQXqWoQXOVmdKCaPLkzSqm_SD-15-
024.pdf.

  Restoring tribal land, water, wildlife and fisheries 
        resources is critical to tribal climate responses. This 
        includes identification and assessment of the full cost of 
        climate impacts on Tribal Nations; \37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \37\ See e.g., NCAI Resolution ABQ-19-036, Calling on Congress to 
Support and Pass Recovering America's Wildlife Act, or Similar 
Legislation with a Tribal Wildlife Conservation and Restoration 
Account, https://www.ncai.org/attachments/
Resolution_wdmLQlFJtJWBerRSGeAYFkjXqdVikLhFyqxMmWUrHzSQVdFG Gjo_ABQ-19-
036.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Co-management and co-stewardship opportunities should be 
        created and furthered to support intergovernmental partnerships 
        and integrate tribal traditional knowledge in climate 
        responses;

  Any inclusion of Traditional Ecological Knowledge must be 
        conditioned on Tribal Nations' free, prior, and informed 
        consent; \38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \38\ NCAI Resolution PDX-11-036, Traditional Ecological Knowledge 
and Climate Change, https://www.ncai.org/attachments/
Resolution_MZlrscMWUDNfPdJGEJQVODCZZtiNPdZRrWVaNmDdEYTmqg YqTat_PDX-11-
036_final.pdf.

  Tribal Nations must be included in climate financing action 
        through increased appropriations, grants, public-private 
        financing opportunities, and removal of barriers to tribal 
        climate responses, including competitive grants and matching 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        fund requirements;

  Financing climate mitigation and adaptation measures must be 
        comprehensive and support a wide range of climate-related 
        activities, including wildfire management, coastal restoration, 
        drought resiliency, and for the development and repair of 
        tribal infrastructure;

  Financing must also be flexible and responsive to tribal 
        needs and decisionmaking, and national efforts towards a 
        carbon-neutral economy must ensure that the socio-economic 
        needs of tribal energy producers are addressed; \39\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \39\ See, e.g., NCAI Resolution ATL-14-050, Support the Wildfire 
Disaster Funding Legislation, https://www.ncai.org/attachments/
Resolution_QpVTbEqVjmjgrNAPeUJdzfXCaXahfjUDwgklXihJcGGiWidclwo_ATL-14-
050.pdf.

  Any federal assistance provided to state and local 
        governments should also be provided to tribal governments 
        through tribal-specific funding mechanisms. Tribal Nations have 
        the solutions to the climate crisis and we request that SCIA 
        support legislation in the 118th Congress that incorporates the 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        above tribal principles.

B. Energy
    Tribal energy resources are vast, largely untapped, and critical to 
America's efforts to achieve energy security and independence, reduce 
greenhouse gasses, and promote economic development for both Indian 
Country and the United States as a whole. These resources include: one 
quarter of the nation's on-shore oil and gas reserves, one-third of the 
nation's western low-sulfur coal, \40\ almost 3.5 percent of the 
nation's wind energy, and approximately five percent of the nation's 
total solar energy potential. \41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \40\ See e.g., Property and Environment Research Center, PERC 
Policy Perspective: Unlocking the Wealth of Indian Nations: Overcoming 
Obstacles to Tribal Energy Development, (2014), https://www.perc.org/
wpcontent/uploads/old/pdfs/IndianPolicySeries%20HIGH.pdf.
    \41\ National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Techno-Economic 
Renewable Energy Potential on Tribal Lands, (2018), https://
www.nrel.gov/docs/fy18osti/70807.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Despite the energy potential in Indian Country, Tribal Nations face 
many challenges, including that approximately 14 percent of homes on 
reservations lack access to electricity \42\ and unique federal laws, 
regulations, and policies create additional burdens for energy 
development on tribal lands. \43\ Given the historic, social, and 
economic impediments Tribal Nations and citizens face, and the 
relatively short time in which they have been involved in energy 
development, the successes of Indian Country are clear indicators of 
future potential. Tribal Nations have several energy related priorities 
for the 118th Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \42\ Department of Energy Department of Energy FY 2017 
Congressional Budget Request--Volume 3. (Feb. 2016), p. 755. https://
energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/02/f30/FY2017BudgetVolume3.pdf.
    \43\ Broken Promises Report, at 182, (2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    First, Tribal Nations need assistance financing energy development 
through use of tools such as loans, grants, and technical assistance. 
\44\ For example, Interior's Indian Energy and Economic Development 
(IEED) Indian Loan Guarantee Program (ILGP) promotes tribal renewable 
and conventional energy development and mineral resource development 
for the purposes of economic development. IEED is responsible for many 
creative and successful initiatives that encourage energy resource 
development on tribal lands, spur economic and business development 
assistance and training, expand job and skills training opportunities, 
and leverage limited federal funding to provide access to capital for 
business development. However, there is a strong need for additional 
appropriations. With additional funding, the program could develop 
additional tribal capacity in managerial and technical capabilities, 
develop resource integration projects, and establish and maintain 
environmental programs in support of economic development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \44\ NCAI Resolution FTL-04-110, Support for Legislation to Enhance 
the Development of Indian Tribes' Energy Resources, https://
www.ncai.org/attachments/
Resolution_QJdbbwFnrWmGVaJqGSHocjqqFSERrkvVBOJzsMmkGfVBtLNw Mrp_ftl04-
110.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Relatedly, Interior needs additional resources to enter into and 
help implement Tribal Energy Resource Agreements (TERAs). Tribal 
Nations can, and should, play a role in regulating the energy services 
industry on their lands and TERAs would assist in that endeavor. 
Without this authority, Tribal Nations, tribal citizens, and tribal 
enterprise utility customers located on tribal lands are, in effect, 
subject to state regulatory practices and decisions that have 
substantial impacts on energy development on tribal lands. \45\ To this 
end, Tribal Nations should not be subject to non-statutory funding 
eligibility requirements. These demands are a barrier to tribal 
participation in energy development funding programs and stifle Indian 
country's energy potential. \46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \45\ Id.
    \46\ NCAI Resolution TUL-13-043, Support for Removal by Congress 
and the President of Barriers to Full Control by Tribal Nations of the 
Development of Their Renewable and Non-renewable Energy Resources, 
https://www.ncai.org/attachments/
Resolution_ttpWzJwjtHdUfEAcemlckTRjoAGzZhJvZoAOdLMxjazDEdHsjYQ_TUL-13-
043%20Final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Finally, any energy-related legislation must include principles of 
parity and meaningful tribal consultation. This is critical since 
Tribal Nations must have the opportunity to provide their energy 
resources in an open market. Doing so will assist Tribal Nations and 
America in addressing critical energy needs. \47\ With respect to 
consultation, Tribal Nations are best suited to make culturally and 
economically relevant decisions about the development and use of their 
energy resources. As such, Tribal Nations must be fully and 
meaningfully consulted with respect to the development of their energy 
resources. This includes both on and off-reservation development of 
energy resources that impact tribal interests. \48\ Despite the energy 
potential in Indian Country, Tribal Nations face many challenges, 
including underfunding, and unique federal laws, regulations, and 
policies that apply to energy development on tribal lands. Investing in 
and empowering Tribal Nations provides strong returns and outcomes for 
tribal and rural communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \47\ NCAI Resolution RAP-10-050, In Support of the Indian Energy 
Promotion and Parity Act of 2010, https://www.ncai.org/attachments/
Resolution_qIVBoCiVrzsphSvbVtxDGRAkClWuwPTgnRpGrZyiFMpCrCwqBg a_RAP-10-
050.pdf.
    \48\ NCAI Resolution SD-15-038, Indian Country's Priorities for 
Federal Energy Legislation, https://www.ncai.org/attachments/
Resolution_qMHMstHTzqxRxkfyszNHlJtQWsJwCTsRfxceShlONcPiSBAVith_SD-15-
038.pdf; see also, NCAI Resolution, REN-19-001, Opposing Mining on 
Public Lands and Around the Grand Canyon without Tribal Nations' Free 
Prior and Informed Consent, https://www.ncai.org/attachments/
Resolution_fEBoYKOrTODFcWRgdViPRcbNmdjBuOuhGLIbNztNyaAqDLlALfA_REN-19-
001%20FINAL.pdf; NCAI Resolution REN-19-024, Staying Mineral Leasing 
and Paleontological Use Permitting in Areas of Tribal Interest, such as 
the Buffalo Strip and Ball Ranch Area of Critical Environmental 
Concern, Where Tribal Nations Do Not Consent, https://www.ncai.org/
attachments/
Resolution_AgWCYVGVVOfVmUHPUmQqpmRGwechoEDblkAfndgPpHJPvAwfICv_REN-19-
024%20FINAL.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. Additional Priorities
A. Address Dual Taxation and Other Barriers to Economic Self-
        Sufficiency
    Acoss Indian Country, Tribal Nations are building sustainable 
tribal economies-including through nation-owned and tribal citizen 
owned businesses-to provide for the economic and social well-being of 
their growing communities. This development is grounded by tribal self-
determination, which includes the ability of each tribal nation to 
create a viable, robust economy based on its cultural values, distinct 
challenges, particular circumstances, and short-and long-term community 
development priorities. In the area of tribal taxation, state and local 
governments have been allowed by the federal courts to encroach upon 
tribal sovereignty and jurisdiction. Consistent with the United States' 
treaty and trust responsibilities, the federal government must take 
action to protect tribal economies and prevent further escalation of 
the taxation problem. NCAI urges Congress to pass legislation that 
promotes Native American tax parity; expands the Indian Employment Tax 
Credit and other tax credits; and removes barriers while promoting 
access to capital, credit, and other financial products that support 
growth of tribal economies.
B. Pass a Clean Carcieri Fix to Support Tribal Lands
    On February 24, 2009 the Supreme Court held in Carcieri v. Salazar, 
129 S.C. 1058 (2009) that the Secretary of the Interior lacked 
authority to take land into trust under Section 5 of the Indian 
Reorganization Act (IRA) for Indian tribes that were not under federal 
jurisdiction at the time of the Act's passage in 1934. Since the 111th 
Congress, \49\ Members of SCIA have either co-sponsored or introduced 
legislation to ``fix'' the Supreme Court's flawed decision. Such 
legislation has had bipartisan support and has sought to amend the IRA 
to undo the damage Carcieri v. Salazar has inflicted on Indian country. 
NCAI supports an amendment that would (1) restore the Interior 
Secretary's authority to take land into trust for all federally 
recognized Tribal Nations; and (2) re-affirm existing trust lands. NCAI 
strongly supports passage of a clean Carcieri fix in the 118th 
Congress. \50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \49\ Indian Country Today, ``Tester Re-Introduces a `Clean Carcieri 
Fix,''' https://indiancountrytoday.com/archive/tester-re-introduces-
clean-carcieri-fix-4hr-jxvB-E6Z8EU3sZkZOw.
    \50\ NCAI Resolution RAP-10-024, To Support Legislation to Address 
the Supreme Court Decision in Carcieri v. Salazar, https://
www.ncai.org/attachments/
Resolution_oiGOSYZkdNCzZHOUkmLuFtLzAGVAKgIErwWMyEKWqiSixNMKwJq_RAP-10-
024.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Pass the Native American Voting Rights Act to Create Equity in 
        Voting for Native People
    Despite being the first inhabitants and sovereigns of what is now 
the United States, American Indians and Alaska Natives were the last 
people granted the right to vote. Native people were not even 
recognized as United States citizens with a right to vote until the 
Indian Citizenship Act in 1924, and it took more than three decades 
after that before all Native Americans were able to fully participate 
in state elections. \51\ Because many Native American reservations are 
rural with poor infrastructure, we still face unique barriers to making 
our voices heard at the ballot box. \52\ With recent court decisions 
and state laws increasingly taking advantage of our isolated conditions 
in order to make it more difficult for tribal citizens to vote, federal 
legislation is needed to provide Native people with fair and equal 
access to voting. \53\ NCAI applauds the bipartisan introduction during 
the 117th Congress of the Native American Voting Rights Act (NAVRA), 
and calls on Congress to reintroduce and pass NAVRA or similar 
legislation designed to put Native American voters on equal footing 
with the rest of the nation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \51\ American Bar Association, Resolution 112 (adopted: February 
17, 2020) (available at: https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/
directories/policy/midyear-2020/2020-midyear-112.pdf).
    \52\ Native American Rights Fund, Obstacles at Every Turn: Barriers 
to Political Participation Faced by Native American Voters (2020) 
(available at: https://vote.narf.org/wpcontent/uploads/2020/06/
obstacles_at_every_turn.pdf).
    \53\ National Congress of American Indians, Resolution MSP-15-030 
(2015) (available at: https://www.ncai.org/resources/resolutions/
tribal-equal-access-to-voting).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
    NCAI appreciates the opportunity to present Indian Country's 
priorities for the 118th Congress to the Committee. We look forward to 
working with the Indian Affairs Committee and its members during this 
Congress to advance the interests of Tribal Nations in accordance with 
the federal trust responsibility.

    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Lozano, please proceed.

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS LOZANO, CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, 
            NATIONAL AMERICAN INDIAN HOUSING COUNCIL

    Mr. Lozano. Good afternoon, Chairman Schatz, Vice Chair 
Murkowski, and distinguished members of the Senate Committee on 
Indian Affairs.
    My name is Thomas Lozano, and I am the Chairman of the 
National American Indian Housing Council, a national 
organization based in Washington, D.C. that advocates as the 
unified voice of tribal housing programs across Indian Country. 
I have also served on the tribal council for my tribe, 
Enterprise Rancheria, Estom Yumeka Maidu, for more than 18 plus 
years. I am honored to sit before you all today and share our 
tribal housing legislative priorities for the 118th Congress.
    As members of this Committee, I am sure you are all aware 
of the incredible and profound need for quality affordable 
housing in tribal communities. According to a 2017 HUD American 
Indian, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian housing needs study, 
approximately 60,000 housing units are needed to address 
overcrowding and substandard housing conditions.
    These dire conditions were magnified during the COVID 
pandemic, as Native families were unable to social distance due 
to overcrowded homes, and in some cases unable to wash their 
heads regularly because of severe lack of water and sanitation 
infrastructure.
    This is unacceptable. Our Native youth, elders, and 
veterans should not live this way. They deserve better.
    NAIHC represents nearly 500 tribal housing programs, and we 
have two main legislative priorities. They have been the same 
priorities for several years now. Number one, reauthorization 
NAHASDA. NAHASDA was last reauthorized in 2008 and expired in 
2013.
    Congress continues to fund NAHASDA programs with some 
slight increases over the last few years since its inception in 
1997. NAHASDA's success has been evident with hundreds of 
tribal housing programs building capacity as they develop their 
own Indian housing plans tailored to the individual tribe's 
housing needs and priorities.
    Included in recent reauthorization bills are certain 
programmatic changes that can significantly improve tribal 
housing programs and strengthen sovereignty, like letting 
tribes set minimum rent rates for housing units, increasing 
access to projects such as the Indian Health Services 
sanitization funds, and HUD's Housing Council grants, and 
developing a more streamlined environmental review process for 
tribes that leverages funding from multiple Federal sources.
    While NAIHC supports the latest versions of NAHASDA 
reauthorization bills and amendments, there are several 
provisions from prior versions of NAHASDA that Congress should 
also consider, including creating a set-aside for tribes to 
access USDA rural housing programs, parity with States on flood 
insurance requirements, and a fix for a court jurisdiction 
issue regarding the HUD 184 loan guarantee program.
    At its foundation, NAHASDA is a tribal self-determination 
program that supports tribal sovereignty. We ask the Committee 
to respect and remember the nature and intent of NAHASDA.
    Priority number two is to increase funding and resources 
for tribal housing programs. While funding has increased the 
last two years, it still leaves over 370 grantee tribes with 
less than $500,000, and 170 tribes with less than $100,000 to 
operate their housing programs. With these funds, tribes are 
expected to manage and maintain their existing housing units, 
provide low-income rental assistance, and other housing 
services, and develop new housing units. It is simply not 
possible for tribes to do all those things without more 
resources.
    The IHBG annual appropriations, when compared over time to 
inflation adjusted levels, shows that tribal housing programs 
have lost over $4 billion since NAHASDA was first funded in 
1998. Inflation isn't the only metric that shows tribal housing 
funding is lagging. In 2000, NAHASDA funding was 2.5 percent of 
the entire HUD budget. In Fiscal Year 2023, that slice of 
funding has dropped to only 1.2 percent of the HUD budget, 
which has nearly tripled in that same time with $65 billion.
    Congress must increase the resources provided to tribal 
housing programs to overcome the high rates of overcrowding and 
substandard homes.
    Development costs continue to increase and tribes are not 
receiving enough resources to maintain their existing housing 
stock and develop new affordable housing units. Each tribe may 
have their own housing priorities, but the beauty of NAHASDA is 
that it allows tribes to help Native families, students, 
elders, veterans, create homeownership opportunities or 
whatever the tribal community needs. We must make sure tribes 
are getting the resources they need.
    In conclusion, on behalf of NAIHC and our member tribes, 
thank you for holding this hearing and for the opportunity to 
keep tribal housing and NAHASDA on the radar. Tribes are 
resilient and resourceful and have constantly shown how far 
they can stretch the housing dollars. But they shouldn't have 
to.
    NAIHC and tribal housing programs look forward to working 
with this Committee, our partners in Congress, and Federal 
agencies to continue building safe, quality affordable housing 
across tribal communities.
    Thank you for your time.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Lozano follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Thomas Lozano, Chairman, Board of Directors, 
                National American Indian Housing Council
    Good Afternoon. My name is Thomas Lozano, and I am the Chairman of 
the Board of Directors of the National American Indian Housing Council. 
I am a member of the Enterprise Rancheria which are Maidu people, and I 
currently serve as the Treasurer of the Tribal Council and sit on the 
Board of Commissioners for the Enterprise Rancheria Indian Housing 
Authority. I want to thank Chairman Schatz, Vice Chair Murkowski, and 
all committee members for having this hearing today and for recognizing 
and understanding that tribal housing issues and the reauthorization of 
the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act 
(NAHASDA) are important priorities for this 118th Congress. I also want 
to thank this Committee for always working to ensure the United States 
is fulfilling its trust and treaty obligations towards Indian Country 
with respect to providing safe, affordable housing opportunities in 
tribal communities and to Native people anywhere in the country.
Background on the National American Indian Housing Council
    The NAIHC was created by tribal housing programs in 1974 and for 
nearly five decades has provided invaluable Training and Technical 
Assistance (T&TA) to all tribes and tribal housing entities; provided 
information to Congress regarding the issues and challenges that tribes 
face in their housing, infrastructure, and community development 
efforts; and worked with key federal agencies to ensure their programs' 
effectiveness in native communities. Overall, NAIHC's primary mission 
is to promote and support American Indians, Alaska Natives and native 
Hawaiians in their self-determined goal to provide culturally relevant 
and quality affordable housing for Native people.
    The membership of NAIHC is comprised of 292 members representing 
493 \1\ tribes and tribal housing organizations. NAIHC's membership 
includes tribes and tribally-designated housing entities throughout the 
United States, including Alaska and Hawaii. Every member of this 
Committee serves constituents that are members of NAIHC, either 
directly through tribes located in your States, or generally through 
the United States' government-to-government relationship with all 
tribes within the United States. NAIHC's members are deeply 
appreciative of your work to improve the lives of Indigenous Peoples 
throughout the Country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ There are 574 federally recognized Indian tribes and Alaska 
Native villages in the United States, all of which are eligible for 
membership in NAIHC. Other NAIHC members include state-recognized 
tribes eligible for housing assistance under the 1937 Housing Act and 
that were subsequently provided funding pursuant to the Native American 
Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996, and the 
Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, the state agency that administers 
the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Profile of Indian Country
    There are 574 federally-recognized Indian tribes in the United 
States. Despite progress over the last few decades, many tribal 
communities continue to suffer from some of the highest unemployment 
and poverty rates in the United States. Historically, Native Americans 
in the United States have also experienced higher rates of substandard 
housing and overcrowded homes than other demographics.
    The U.S. Census Bureau reported in the 2019 American Community 
Survey data that American Indians and Alaska Natives were almost twice 
as likely to live in poverty as the rest of the population--23.0 
percent compared with 12.3 percent. The median income for an American 
Indian Alaska Native household is 30 percent less than the national 
average ($45,476 versus $65,712).
    In addition, overcrowding, substandard housing, and homelessness 
are far more common in Native American communities. In January 2017, 
the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) published an 
updated housing needs assessment for tribal communities. According to 
the assessment, 5.6 percent of homes on Native American lands lacked 
complete plumbing and 6.6 percent lacked complete kitchens. These are 
nearly four times than the national average, which saw rates of 1.3 
percent and 1.7 percent, respectively. The assessment found that 12 
percent of tribal homes lacked sufficient heating.
    The assessment also highlighted the issue of overcrowded homes in 
Indian Country, finding that 15.9 percent of tribal homes were 
overcrowded, compared to only 2.2 percent of homes nationally. The 
assessment concluded that to alleviate the substandard and overcrowded 
homes in Indian Country, 68,000 new units need to be built.
    Since the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination 
Act (NAHASDA) was enacted in 1996, tribes have built over 37,000 new 
units according to HUD. However, as the appropriations for the Indian 
Housing Block Grant (IHBG) (established by NAHASDA) have remained level 
for a number of years, inflation has diminished the purchasing power of 
those dollars, and new unit construction has diminished as tribes focus 
their efforts on existing unit rehabilitation. While averaging over 
2,400 new unit construction between FY2007 and 2010, new unit 
construction has dropped in recent years with only 2,000 new units 
between 2011 and 2014, and HUD estimating less than 1,000 new units in 
future years as tribes maintain existing housing stock over new 
development.
Status of Housing Opportunities for Native Americans
    There remains a large unmet need for quality, affordable housing in 
tribal communities. As members of the committee are aware, there is a 
housing shortage across the country, and that is definitely true for 
Native communities. With a lack of consistent data collection year-to-
year, NAIHC is largely relying on the American Indian, Alaska Native 
and Native Hawaiian Housing Needs Study, published by HUD in January 
2017. The report identified an unmet need of 68,000 units to address 
overcrowded and substandard housing conditions. With new housing 
construction or acquisition fairly stagnant around 1,000 new units per 
year in tribal communities across the United States. It is unlikely the 
unmet need has changed. Additionally, many of NAIHC's members have 
opined that they believe the 2017 Study's unmet need calculation is 
underestimated.
    The large unmet need is persistent, growing, and largely due to 
insufficient resources to address reversing the trends. In 2018, the 
United States Commission on Civil Rights updated its ``Broken 
Promises'' report first released in 2003, and found that housing 
conditions had deteriorated, with the number of overcrowded households 
or households with inadequate plumbing growing by 21 percent, and the 
number of families facing severe housing costs growing by 55 percent.
    Despite these trends moving in the wrong direction, Congress has 
been decreasing the amounts of housing assistance to tribal communities 
each year through stagnant funding of NAHASDA programs while inflation 
has grown over the past 20 years. In FY20, Congressional IHBG formula 
funding of $650 million provided roughly two-thirds the purchasing 
power that tribes received at the inception of NAHASDA in FY98 ($600 
million in FY 1998). Tracking IHBG funding since NAHASDA's passage 
revealed that annual appropriations compared to inflation-adjusted 
levels have caused tribal housing programs to lose $3.4 billion since 
FY 1998. Recent funding additions to NAHASDA programs, such as the 
competitive IHBG funding, are welcome and encouraging, but alone are 
insufficient to make up for the loss of funding over time.
    To put the funding in another perspective, the FY2021 IHBG funding 
levels provide 379 tribes/grantees with less than $500,000 to operate 
their housing program, which includes managing their existing housing 
units, providing low-income rental assistance, other housing services 
AND developing new housing units. Further, 175 of the IHBG grantees 
received less than $100,000 a year to carry out these activities. While 
some of the tribes form umbrella organizations to create efficiencies, 
it should be easy to see why we're not making much progress against the 
levels of unmet need.
    While the funding of NAHASDA programs continues to be an issue, the 
program itself is helpful to tribes and over the years has built the 
capacity of tribal housing programs across the country. Tribes have 
been able to rely on consistent, dedicated funding through NAHASDA for 
over 20 years, which has allowed them to create housing programs and 
develop and train dedicated staff to operate those housing programs. 
The success of tribal housing programs was evident early on in NAHASDA, 
when tribes were producing new housing units at rates similar to or 
higher than HUD prior to NAHASDA's enactment. NAHASDA has also 
increased the local control of funding as it is the tribes themselves 
that develop their own Indian Housing Plan for the communities. These 
plans are tailored to the individual tribe's priorities for housing and 
have provided the flexibility tribes need to carry out their programs. 
For example, a tribe could prioritize senior assisted housing, rental 
assistance, or homeownership, and they would do so by incorporating 
those services into their Indian Housing Plan.
    It is with that upgraded capacity of tribal housing programs 
provided for by NAHASDA that we can begin to look at the full landscape 
of federal housing resources and programs. HUD itself has numerous 
housing programs and resources, some general, some tribe-specific. 
Tribal programs include the Indian Community Development Block Grant 
(ICDBG), the HUD 184 Native American Loan Guarantee Program, NAHASDA 
Title VI Loan Guarantee Program, the formula funded and competitive 
IHBG programs, and Native Hawaiian programs. Other HUD programs have 
varying levels of eligibility for tribes, and NAIHC has advocated both 
to Congress and with our federal partners to improve tribal access to 
these more national-scope programs. The best example is the HUD Housing 
Counseling program, which tribes are currently ineligible to apply for 
funds but may soon find themselves subject to housing counseling 
regulations not tailored for tribal communities. Another example is the 
Continuum of Care program, which was addressed by Congress through the 
inclusion of the Tribal Access to Homeless Assistance Act in the FY2021 
Consolidated Appropriations Act and which tribes are now eligible to 
participate in.
    In addition to HUD, tribes can find housing resources at the U.S. 
Treasury, such as tax credit programs and the recently created 
Emergency Rental Assistance Program and Homeowner Assistance Funds; the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture and its Rural Housing programs; the 
Veterans Administration and its Native American Direct Loan Program; 
and others.
    NAHASDA was passed in 1996 to streamline tribes' access to housing 
programs dollars by consolidating multiple programs into a single block 
grant. However, with the lack of increased appropriations to NAHASDA 
programs, tribes are again piecing their housing programs together by 
finding resources from different programs across the federal 
government. In a 2018 survey conducted by NAIHC, only 17 percent of our 
members who responded indicated they planned to utilize non-HUD funds 
in their programs. So while there are various resources available to 
tribes, it takes a lot of work to gather these pieces and leverage it 
with multiple funding opportunities, while also operating the day-to-
day housing program and caring about the community.
Priorities for 118th Congress
    Reauthorization of NAHASDA, increased resources: NAHASDA was last 
reauthorized in 2008 and expired in 2013. While Congress has continued 
to provide funding to NAHASDA programs, and even increased some program 
funding in the last few years, there are some programmatic changes that 
recent reauthorization bills contain that could streamline various 
aspects of HUD and IHBG programs. For example, one long-standing fix 
would address duplicative environmental reviews, which tribes often 
face when they leverage multiple federal funding sources. Recent 
reauthorization bills have also contained provisions to create an 
Assistant Secretary for Indian Housing to provide enhanced attention at 
the senior leadership of HUD.
    The Senate reauthorization bills from the 117th Congress also have 
several important leveraging provisions that allow tribal housing 
projects to utilized the Indian Health Service's Sanitation funds, 
provide access to HUD Housing Counseling grants, and encourage 
leveraging other federal funds by relaxing match requirements. Other 
smaller fixes include simplifying Total Development Cost allowances, 
clarifying the rent-to-ownership process and allowing tribes to assist 
with student housing. One provision related to promoting tribal 
sovereignty and self-determination, a key component of NAHASDA, would 
allow tribes to set minimum rent rates for its housing units, and NAIHC 
supports its continued inclusion in NAHASDA reauthorization efforts.
    NAIHC recognizes the progress that has been made on getting NAHASDA 
reauthorization enacted, and particularly would like to thank the Chair 
and Vice Chair of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs for their 
efforts.
    While NAIHC supports the latest versions of NAHASDA reauthorization 
bills and amendments, there are several provisions that Congress should 
also consider. A prior version of NAHASDA, H.R. 5319 in the 116th 
Congress, contained several provisions that garnered bipartisan 
support. That bill had 35 bipartisan cosponsors. One key provision of 
that bill would create tribal set-asides for several USDA Rural Housing 
programs. These programs serve rural and low-income populations across 
the United States but they have not been very effective in tribal 
communities. Specific set-asides for tribal communities, coupled with 
incorporating Native CDFIs and tribal programs on the ground at the 
local level, would guarantee that these Rural Housing programs reach 
tribal communities.
    H.R. 5319 also included a fix for a court jurisdiction issue 
regarding the HUD 184 Loan Guarantee program. This provision would have 
clarified that tribal courts are proper jurisdiction, along with other 
courts, for certain foreclosure proceedings, and it would have allowed 
the Department of Justice flexibility in contracting attorneys familiar 
with tribal courts to carry out any such work. The bill also included 
an important parity provision that would exempt tribal programs from 
the National Flood Insurance Program, similar to the exemption that 
state housing programs currently enjoy. NAIHC encourages that these 
provisions be considered in a NAHASDA package.
    Outside of reauthorizing NAHASDA, NAIHC's priority for this 
Congress is to increase funding and resources provided to tribes and 
tribal housing programs. Congress has increased funding for the Indian 
Housing Block Grant by 20 percent over the past the three years and 
that is a welcome trend. However, prior to the recent increase, NAHASDA 
funds were stagnant for over 20 years, allowing inflation to eat away 
at the only dedicated funding stream for tribal housing programs. Even 
today, with the increases, tribal housing programs only have 71 percent 
of the purchasing power they had in 1998 with original funding under 
NAHASDA. Over the 25 years of NAHASDA, tribal housing programs have 
lost out on over $4 billion dollars without program funding keeping 
pace with inflation. The graph below shows the IHBG funding levels 
compared to the original funding indexed for inflation.


    Inflation is not the only metric by which funding for tribal 
housing is falling behind. NAHASDA funding in 2000 was nearly 2.5 
percent of the entire HUD budget ($600 million vs. $25 billion). In 
FY23 that has dropped to only 1.2 percent ($787 million vs. $65 
billion). The large portion of growth in the HUD budget has been 
related to the Section 8 voucher program, which tribes specifically 
gave up access to as part of NAHASDA. Unfortunately, if tribes had 
retained access to that program, tribal communities would have seem 
some of that growth that they have not received under NAHASDA. The 
graph below from CRS shows the growth of Public Housing Section 8 
program versus all other HUD programs.


    Congress must increase the resources we provide to tribal housing 
programs to overcome the high rates of overcrowding and substandard 
homes. Development costs continue to increase and tribes are not 
receiving enough resources to maintain their existing housing stock and 
development new affordable housing units.
Other Improvements to existing Housing Programs
    Make HUD-VASH Permanent and Expand to All Tribes: Currently, only 
26 tribes have participated in the Tribal HUD-VASH program, which 
provides both housing and supportive services to tribal veterans and 
their families that are homeless or at-risk of homelessness. HUD-VASH 
is another example of a larger, national housing program that 
originally left tribal communities out when it was created in 2008. 
Congress expanded the program through a tribal demonstration project 
beginning in FY 2015. The program has identified obstacles, such as the 
lack of housing stock in tribal communities to house veterans through 
the program and the need for greater supportive services from the VA to 
native veterans in tribal communities. Many of the tribes participating 
in the pilot have found ways to provide these supportive services 
through various partnerships between the VA and tribal or IHS 
professionals and tribes may be more able to secure housing units for 
the program if it was made permanent and tribes had more certainty for 
future funding of the program.
    It is well known that Native Americans have served in the United 
States Armed Forces as higher rates than any other demographic, so it 
is vital that Native veterans are provided the support they deserve and 
have earned through their service. Native veterans are not limited to 
the 26 tribes that have participated in the program, and we look 
forward to working with Congress to ensure the program is expanded to 
include all tribe and their veterans. The full Senate has passed the 
Tribal HUD-VASH Act in each of the last two Congresses and has faced 
some obstacles in the House. NAIHC will continue to work to address any 
outstanding issues to make sure HUD-VASH is made permanent and working 
for all tribal communities.
    Section 184 Loan Guarantee Program: The 184 Loan Guarantee program 
helps a tribe or tribal member secure a mortgage for an existing or 
new-construction home by providing a loan guarantee to a private sector 
bank or lending institution. While the program is targeted to tribal 
communities and nearby service areas, the program has struggled to 
incentivize mortgages on trust lands in tribal communities, where many 
families reside on land their families have held for generations. 
Obstacles include a slow and burdensome title process involving the 
Department of the Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs and banks and 
lenders general preference to work with the more familiar property held 
``in fee''. Improvements include streamlining the process at the BIA, 
encouraging more private lenders to participate in the program 
generally and participate through mortgages specifically on trust 
lands.
    State housing programs and passthroughs: Several federal programs, 
notably the Low Income Housing Tax Credits and the Housing Trust Fund, 
establish funds or processes that operate at the state-level. While 
many of these states utilize the unmet housing needs in tribal 
communities to improve their allocations, there is not necessarily a 
mechanism that requires the states to prioritize tribal areas in 
receiving the final benefit of these federal housing programs. The 
result is a mix of effectiveness of these programs in tribal 
communities, where the relationship between state and tribal officials 
can greatly affect the final impact of these programs for tribes. In 
states where we see tribal or rural areas receiving some type of 
allocation or increased application scores, tribes have been successful 
in developing new projects with these federal funds.
    However, there is often a blind eye turned to tribal communities 
(and not always intentional) as state programs often believe tribal 
housing issues are a federal issue, or that the tribe can rely on 
direct federal funding. This is not unique to states, as even non-HUD 
federal housing programs can omit tribal communities, believing that 
tribes can rely solely on NAHASDA or BIA programs to meet their 
community housing needs.
    Training and Technical Assistance: The current model of TTA to 
tribal housing programs requires tribes to submit requests to HUD 
offices. Those requests are then analyzed and then submitted to 
national or regional TTA providers, of which NAIHC is one of several. 
However, the model likely discourages tribes to request TTA as they 
would be submitting requests to the same federal agency that oversees 
their program implementation or funding. NAIHC believes that providing 
more flexibility to the TTA providers to receive and respond to tribal 
TTA requests directly can improve the delivery of those services and 
encourage tribal housing programs to actually address their training 
needs.
    Restore Access to Section 8 Vouchers: Prior to NAHASDA, many tribes 
have been receiving tenant-based vouchers to provide low-income rental 
assistance to members in tribal communities. With NAHASDA providing the 
single block grant to tribes, NAHASDA expressly restricted tribes from 
accessing vouchers moving forward. However, with NAHASDA funds 
remaining stagnant (or decreasing due to inflation), tribes find it 
difficult to provide the same low-income rental assistance year-to-year 
or to expand that assistance as new housing units come online in their 
communities. Congress routinely adds vouchers to the larger national 
program to keep pace with the need, or to fund existing vouchers 
adequately each year, while tribal programs have no similar mechanism. 
While the restriction on section 8 vouchers could be removed entirely, 
past NAIHC resolutions have called for the specific restoration of 
vouchers for LIHTC projects in tribal communities, as the two programs 
work together well in the non-tribal setting.
    Improve the Effectiveness of non-HUD housing programs in Indian 
Country: As stated above, there are several federal housing programs 
established outside of HUD. While these programs are often national in 
scope, the lack of attention paid by these programs to tribal 
communities often limits their impact for native families. For 
instance, USDA Rural Housing programs are tailor made for rural areas, 
and often are targeted to low-income families, yet their reach to 
tribal communities has been limited. Often this is due to USDA program 
staff not geographically located near the tribal community or limited 
outreach to families in those tribal communities. We're often asking 
our overburdened tribal housing professionals to know the USDA programs 
well enough to connect those families with USDA resources. A recent 
pilot project in South Dakota has allowed the USDA 502 Single Family 
Home Loan program to lend to Native CDFIs as intermediaries, while 
those Native CDFIs carry out the lending directly in tribal 
communities. This has been successful, with the Native CDFIs largely 
maxing out their mortgage lending with the funding available under the 
pilot. This on-the-ground presence in tribal communities as well as the 
comfort level of native families working with native housing 
professionals has allowed more native families to access USDA 
resources. This model could be expanded both throughout
    USDA Rural Housing programs and through other federal housing 
programs, such as the VA's Native American Direct Loan Program. The 
NADLP program only have 7-10 staff to market the program and serve 
Native American veterans in all 574 tribal communities across the 
country. As a result of the lack of presence of that program, very few 
mortgage loans are provided to Native veterans each year.
    Further incentivize private investment in tribal communities: 
Indian Country is almost always last to receive the attention of 
private, commercial banking. The lack of economies of scale in tribal 
communities, increased development costs, and the complexities of 
tribal lands and communities (both actual and perceived) simply lead 
private banking to avoid tribal areas. While there have been national 
tax credit programs or other incentives available for years to spur 
development in underserved areas, the programs have generally been less 
effective for Indian Country. Strengthening incentives for development 
in Indian Country or creating specific set-asides or mandates through 
these programs is needed to ensure that tribal communities are not left 
further behind.
    Including Indian Country in Infrastructure Packages: Development 
costs are higher in Indian Country. The rural nature of most tribal 
communities and the lack of pre-existing roads, water, electricity and 
other infrastructure increase the cost of developing new housing. As 
Congress works to address the infrastructure needs of the entire 
nation, it must recognize the lack of infrastructure funding over 
decades to tribal communities and include Indian Country appropriately. 
While NAIHC believes infrastructure should include housing resources 
directly, any investments in infrastructure in tribal communities will 
improve tribal housing programs' ability to plan and develop new 
housing construction in the future.
Conclusion
    NAIHC wants to thank the members of this Committee for holding this 
important hearing and we want to thank all the members of Congress who 
have introduced and sponsored bills and supported efforts to improve 
housing opportunities in tribal communities. Tribes have consistently 
shown how far they can stretch their housing dollars to help the most 
members of their community as possible, and NAIHC and tribal housing 
programs look forward to working with our partners in Congress and 
Federal agencies to continue building safe, affordable housing in our 
communities. NAIHC asks for the Committee's support to reauthorize 
NAHASDA, increase funding to critical tribal housing programs, and help 
address the incredible need for housing units and developments across 
Indian Country.

    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    Ms. Lindsey, Aloha. Please proceed with your testimony.

    STATEMENT OF HON. CARMEN HULU LINDSEY, CHAIR, BOARD OF 
              TRUSTEES, OFFICE OF HAWAIIAN AFFAIRS

    Ms. Lindsey. Mahalo nui loa, thank you very much, Chairman 
Schatz, Vice Chairman Murkowski, and distinguished members of 
the Committee, for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the 
Office of Hawaiian Affairs and our beneficiaries, the Native 
Hawaiian community.
    The priorities OHA presents today align with one guiding 
principle: further self-determination for Native Hawaiians. 
Chairman Schatz, we are particularly grateful for your efforts 
to secure much-needed increases in funding through the Fiscal 
Year 2023 Omnibus Appropriations Bill to support the Native 
Hawaiian community.
    OHA also celebrates the enactment into law of the Durbin 
Feeling American Languages Act of 2022, and the Native American 
Language Resource Center Act of 2022. We thank the Committee 
and Senator Schatz for championing these bills in the 117th 
Congress.
    OHA also recognizes the dedicated leadership of Vice 
Chairman Murkowski and the rich legacy of collaboration between 
Hawaii and the Alaska Congressional delegation to advance 
issues to advance issues important to each of our non-
contiguous States, especially for our Native peoples. 
Specifically, we want to acknowledge and thank you for 
reintroducing legislation last month to amend the Native 
American Tourism and Improving Visitor Experience Act and 
authorize grants to Native Hawaiian organizations.
    OHA is encouraged by the continued bipartisan work of this 
Committee and its members and its commitment to promoting 
policies that promote education, health, housing, economic 
stability, and a variety of other Federal programs that support 
Native Hawaiian self-determination. OHA's written testimony 
details a broad handful of priorities for the 118th Congress.
    OHA's first priority is to urge the Committee to consider 
mandating the preparation of and funding for a ceded lands 
inventory report. The terms of statehood of Hawaii acknowledged 
the plight of the Native Hawaiian people.
    Specifically, in the Admission Act of 1959, Section 5(f) of 
the Act refers to the crown and government lands of the 
Hawaiian kingdom which had been designated as ceded to the 
Republic of Hawaii, and then to the United States. Once the 
property of the Hawaiian monarchy and the government of the 
kingdom of Hawaii, these lands totaled 1.8 million acres upon 
annexation in 1898.
    Further, the Admission Act of 1959 conveyed these lands to 
the new State of Hawaii with the caveat that revenues from 
these lands were to be managed as a trust for five purposes, 
one of which is the betterment of conditions of Native 
Hawaiians. Sixty-three years after statehood, the State does 
not have a complete inventory of these trust lands.
    OHA's next priority is to urge this Committee to pass 
legislation in the 118th Congress that would codify the Federal 
consultation mandate of Executive Order 13175 and extend these 
rights to all Native Americans, including Native Hawaiians. OHA 
is encouraged by the Department of the Interior's recent 
proposed draft, Native Hawaiian Community Consultation Policy 
and Procedures, which affirms and honors the political and 
trust relationship between the United States and the Native 
Hawaiian community.
    OHA specifically acknowledges and is grateful to see that 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 
requires a report on the Department of Defense plans to 
identify, standardize, and coordinate best practice with 
respect to consultation and engagement with the Native Hawaiian 
community.
    Given the magnitude of the catastrophe and its 
environmental and community impacts, we recommend the Committee 
and Congress continue its vigilant oversight in accelerated 
defueling and closure of the Red Hill Fuel Storage Tanks. OHA 
thanks you, Chairman Schatz, for securing funding through the 
Fiscal Year 2023 Omnibus Appropriations Bill to effectively 
defuel and shut down the Red Hill bulk storage facility and to 
conduct initial planning and design activities to explore the 
feasibility of a potential water treatment and distribution 
facility for the Red Hill shaft.
    We call on and support the Committee and Congress' actions 
to safeguard Native Hawaiian women, children, and families. We 
highlight OHA's work with the Hawaii State Commission on the 
Status of Women to convene a task force to study missing and 
murdered Native Hawaiian women and girls. Native Hawaiian women 
and girls experience violence at rates disproportionate to 
their population size. However, Native Hawaiians have largely 
been left out of the Federal policy discourse and resource 
allocation to address violence against indigenous communities 
in the United States.
    Thank you for this opportunity to testify and share OHA's 
priorities for the 118th Congress. We remain available to the 
Committee.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Lindsey follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Hon. Carmen Hulu Lindsey, Chair, Board of 
                  Trustees, Office of Hawaiian Affairs
    Mahalo nui loa (Thank you very much) Chairman Schatz, Vice Chairman 
Murkowski, and distinguished members of the Committee, for the 
opportunity to testify on behalf of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs 
(OHA) and our beneficiaries-the Native Hawaiian community. The 
priorities OHA presents today align with one guiding principle-
furthering self-determination for Native Hawaiians. Chairman Schatz, we 
are particularly grateful for your efforts to secure much needed 
increases in funding through the FY 2023 Omnibus Appropriations Bill to 
support the Native Hawaiian community. OHA also celebrates the 
enactment into law of the Durbin Feeling Native American Languages Act 
of 2022 and the Native American Language Resource Center Act of 2022. 
We thank the Committee and Senator Schatz for championing these bills 
in the 117th Congress.
    OHA also recognizes the dedicated leadership of Vice Chairman 
Murkowski and the rich legacy of collaboration between Hawai`i and the 
Alaska Congressional delegation to advance issues important to each of 
our non-contiguous states, especially for our Native peoples. 
Specifically, we want to acknowledge and thank you for reintroducing 
legislation last month to amend the Native American Tourism and 
Improving Visitor Experience Act and authorize grants to Native 
Hawaiian organizations. OHA is encouraged by the continued bipartisan 
work of this Committee and its Members, and its commitment to promoting 
policies that promote education, health, housing, economic stability, 
and a variety of other federal programs that support Native Hawaiian 
self-determination.
Background on OHA and its Standing to Represent Native Hawaiians
    Established by our State's Constitution, \1\ OHA is a semi-
autonomous agency of the State of Hawai`i with a mandate to better the 
conditions of Native Hawaiians. Guided by a board of nine publicly 
elected trustees, all of whom are Native Hawaiian, OHA fulfills its 
mandate through advocacy, research, community engagement, land 
management, prudent investments and the funding of community programs. 
Hawai`i state law recognizes OHA as the principal public agency in the 
State responsible for the performance, development, and coordination of 
programs and activities relating to Native Hawaiians. \2\ Furthermore, 
state law directs OHA to formulate policy for Native Hawaiians; \3\ to 
advocate on behalf of Native Hawaiians; \4\ to advise and inform 
federal officials about Native Hawaiian programs; and to coordinate 
federal activities relating to Native Hawaiians. \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Haw. Const., art. XII,  5 (1978).
    \2\ Haw. Rev. Stat.  10-3(3).
    \3\ Haw. Const., art. XII,  6 (1978).
    \4\ Haw. Rev. Stat.  10-3(4).
    \5\ Haw. Rev. Stat.  10-6(a)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priorities for the 118th Congress
    The following are OHA's priorities for the 118th Congress, and we 
respectfully request the Committee's (and Congress') support:

         1) For the preparation and funding of a ceded lands inventory 
        report, which would detail the lands transferred, via the 1959 
        Admissions Act, \6\ to the state government, in order to assess 
        the stewardship and management practices of the state of 
        Hawai`i in upholding the Federal Trust responsibilities to 
        Native Hawaiian;

    \6\ The Admission Act, An Act to Provide for the Admission of the 
State of Hawaii into the Union, March 18, 1959, Pub L 86-3, 73 Stat 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         2) To ensure broad inclusion of Native Hawaiians in federal 
        conference, coordination, engagement and consultation policies 
        and practices;

         3) To continue vigilant oversight of the accelerated defueling 
        and closure of the Red Hill fuel storage tanks;

         4) To ensure funding for environmental assessment, cleanup and 
        mitigation of sacred lands polluted and contaminated by the 
        United States military; and

         5) To ensure broad funding and programming equity for all 
        Native Americans, including American Indians, Alaska Natives, 
        and Native Hawaiians.

    Each of these priorities is discussed in more detail below.
    1) Commission and Funding of a Ceded Lands Inventory Report

    The terms of statehood for Hawai`i acknowledged the plight of the 
Native Hawaiian people, specifically in the Admission Act of 1959. 
Section 5(f) of the Act refers to the crown and government lands of the 
Hawaiian Kingdom which had been designated as ``ceded'' to the Republic 
of Hawai`i, and then to the United States. Once the property of the 
Hawaiian monarchy and of the government of the Kingdom of Hawai`i, 
these lands totaled 1.8 million acres upon annexation in 1898. Pursuant 
to the Joint Resolution of Annexation, all of these lands were 
considered ``ceded'' to the United States government ``for the benefit 
of the inhabitants of the Hawaiian Islands.'' Further, the Admission 
Act of 1959 conveyed these lands to the new State of Hawai`i with the 
caveat that revenues from these lands were to managed as a trust for 
five purposes. One of these was the betterment of the conditions of 
Native Hawaiians.
    Underscoring the historical injustices that gave rise to the 
federal trust responsibility relating to the ceded lands are the 
findings of Congress in the 1993 Apology Resolution: \7\

    \7\ Public Law 103-150 (1993)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Whereas, the Republic of Hawaii also ceded 1,800,000 acres of 
        crown, government, and public lands of the Kingdom of Hawaii, 
        without the consent of or compensation to the Native Hawaiian 
        people of Hawaii or their sovereign government.

        Whereas, the indigenous Hawaiian people never directly 
        relinquished their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a 
        people or over their national lands to the United States, 
        either through their monarchy or through a plebiscite or 
        referendum. \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ The Admission Act, An Act to Provide for the Admission of the 
State of Hawaii into the Union, March 18, 1959, Pub L 86-3, 73 Stat 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    (Emphasis added.) When statehood was granted in 1959, the federal 
government returned to the State of Hawai`i all ceded lands not set 
aside for the federal government's own use. Section 5(f) of the 
Admission Act directed the state to hold the lands in trust for the 
following five purposes:

        1) the support of public education;

         2) the betterment of the conditions of Native Hawaiians as 
        defined in the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920;

         3) the development of farm and home ownership;

         4) the making of public improvements; and

         5) the provision of lands for public use.

    The first fiduciary obligation of a trustee is to inventory and 
account for the trust assets. Yet sixty-three years after statehood, 
the State does not have a complete inventory of these trust lands. In 
addition, a complete inventory of ceded lands, including former Kingdom 
Government and Crown lands, and holdings by the federal, state and 
county governments, is critical for the federal government to uphold 
its trust responsibility to Native Hawaiians. Accordingly, OHA urges 
the Committee to consider mandating the preparation of, and funding 
for, a ceded lands inventory report.

    2) Broad Inclusion of Native Hawaiians in Federal Conference, 
Coordination, Engagement and Consultation Policies and Practices

    Native Hawaiians are owed the same trust responsibility as any 
other Native American group. Similar to American Indians and Alaska 
Natives, Native Hawaiians have never relinquished our right to self-
determination despite the United States' involvement in the illegal 
overthrow of Queen Lili`uokalani in 1893 and the dismantling of our 
government. In fact, over 150 Acts of Congress consistently and 
expressly recognize a special political and trust relationship to 
Native Hawaiians based on our status as the Indigenous, once-sovereign 
people of Hawai`i. Among these laws are the Hawaiian Homes Commission 
Act, 1920 (42 Stat. 108) (1921), the Native Hawaiian Education Act (20 
U.S.C.  7511) (1988), the Native Hawaiian Health Care Improvement Act 
(42 U.S.C.  11701) (1988), and the Hawaiian Homelands Homeownership 
Act codified in the Native American Housing Assistance and Self 
Determination Act (NAHASDA), Title VIII (25 U.S.C.  4221) (2000). 
Indeed, Congress expressly established the Office of Native Hawaiian 
Relations within the Department of the Interior to implement the 
special legal relationship between the federal government and Native 
Hawaiians.
    OHA is encouraged by the Department of the Interior's recent 
proposed draft Native Hawaiian Community consultation policy and 
procedures, which affirms and honors the political and trust 
relationship between the United States and the Native Hawaiian 
Community. This is an important, historic step towards a voice in 
federal decisionmaking. However, Native Hawaiians are still largely 
omitted from consultation policies and processes across other federal 
agencies. History has shown that failure to include the voices of 
Indigenous leaders in formulating policy affecting their communities 
has all too often led to undesirable and, at times, devastating and 
tragic results. We urge this Committee to pass legislation in the 118th 
Congress that would codify the federal consultation mandate of 
Executive Order 13175 and extend these rights to all Native Americans, 
including Native Hawaiians.
    Although the Native Hawaiian community has not yet reorganized a 
government, Congress's thoughtful inclusion of Native Hawaiians in key 
legislation like the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation 
Act (NAGPRA) (25 U.S.C.  3001) and the National Historic Preservation 
Act (NHPA) (16 U.S.C.  470 et seq.) demonstrates that Native Hawaiians 
can be effectively included in consultation now, with representation 
through Native Hawaiian organizations. OHA, moreover, is already 
actively involved with federal consultations. OHA receives and reviews 
approximately 240 requests for federal consultations each year, 
including Section 106 NHPA and NAGPRA reviews. The federal government 
takes many more actions affecting the Native Hawaiian community than 
are covered by these two statutes without ever giving Native Hawaiians 
an opportunity to consult. This must change.
    OHA specifically acknowledges and is grateful to see that the 
National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2023 requires a report on 
Department of Defense (DOD) plans to identify, standardize, and 
coordinate best practices with respect to consultation and engagement 
with the Native Hawaiian community. Given the significant presence of 
DOD operations and activities in Hawai`i, it is critical that Native 
Hawaiians are engaged in any proposed undertakings that would impact 
our community.

    3) Vigilant Oversight in Accelerated Defueling and Closure of the 
Red Hill Fuel Storage Tanks

    OHA underscores the health and safety concerns of our beneficiaries 
and lands who have been adversely impacted by leaks from the U.S. Navy 
Red Hill Bulk Fuel Tanks (RHBFT). RHBFT has the capacity to store up to 
250 million gallons of fuel only 100 feet over O'ahu's major aquifer 
which provides drinking water to over 400,000 residents of O`ahu. OHA 
thanks you, Chairman Schatz, for securing funding through the FY 2023 
Omnibus Appropriations Bill to effectively defuel and shut down the Red 
Hill Bulk Storage Facility, and to conduct initial planning and design 
activities to explore the feasibility of a potential water treatment 
and distribution facility for the Red Hill shaft. We also appreciate 
your recent letter urging the Environmental Protection Agency to fully 
review and consider public comments on the proposed Consent Order and 
Statement of Work for closure of the Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage 
Facility. Given the magnitude of the catastrophe, and its environmental 
and community impacts, we request that this Committee continue its 
vigilance in providing the necessary oversight to ensure that 
additional transparency and mandatory input from the Native Hawaiian 
community is incorporated.

    4) Fund Environmental Assessments, Cleanup and Mitigations of 
Sacred Lands Polluted and Contaminated by the U.S. Military

    Remediation for contamination on sacred lands by the U.S. military 
must receive the highest priority given the United States' trust 
responsibility to Native Hawaiians, particularly in light of this 
Administration's strong commitment to ensuring environmental justice in 
disadvantaged communities. \9\ Approximately 46,500 acres of land 
across the State of Hawai`i is being used by the U.S. military. This 
includes U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force bases and installations, with 
the largest being the Army's Pohakuloa Training Area on Hawai`i Island 
which encompasses approximately 23,000 acres. \10\ Several sacred 
sites, including Pohakuloa, Kaho`olawe and Haleakala, require 
environmental assessments and clean-up as a result of the federal 
government's actions. Just last month, officials from the U.S. Space 
Force announced that an estimated 700 gallons of diesel fuel was 
spilled at the Maui Space Surveillance Complex, located at the summit 
of Haleakala. The Complex, originally built as an electro-optical 
observation platform for missile tests, hosts the U.S. Department of 
Defense's largest optical telescope designed for tracking and imaging 
satellites. The spill on Haleakala is just the latest in the military's 
history of repeated contamination and degradation of lands and waters 
throughout the state of Hawai`i. Another example from 2004 relates to 
the U.S. Navy's ending of the environmental mitigation project known as 
the Kaho`olawe UXO Clearance Project--yet an astonishing twenty-five 
percent (25 percent) of the island (6,692 acres) has not been cleared 
of unexploded ordnance and unescorted access to these areas remains 
unsafe. \11\ There are nearly 3,000 archeological and historical sites 
on Kaho`olawe, which was once a traditional Native Hawaiian 
navigational center for voyaging, the site of an adze quarry, an 
agricultural center, and a site for religious and cultural ceremonies. 
Given the impact of these military operations on our resources, rights, 
and lands, we urge the Committee to mandate further study and 
remediation. We also request that the Committee exercise its oversight 
authority to ensure accountability and consultation with the Native 
Hawaiian community through this process.

    \9\ See e.g., E.O. 13985, Advancing Racial Equity and Support for 
Underserved Communities through the Federal Government (addressing 
federal agency barriers and allocating resources to address historic 
failures) (Jan. 20, 2021); E.O. 13990, Protecting Public Health and the 
Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis 
(requiring review of agency actions from January 20, 2017 through 
January 20, 2021, and holding polluters who disproportionately harm 
communities of color/low income accountable) (Jan. 20, 2021); and E.O. 
14008, Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad (creating a task 
force to deliver environmental justice and engage with Native 
communities) (Jan. 27, 2021).
    \10\ US Indo-Pacific Command, Hawai'i Military Land Use Master 
Plan, 2021 Interim Update, Final--April 2021
    \11\  https://www.kahoolawe.hawaii.gov/history.shtml, retrieved 
February 28, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    5) Broad Funding and Programming Equity for Native Hawaiians

    Congress has utilized a patchwork of programs administered through 
federally funded Native Hawaiian-serving organizations such as OHA, the 
Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, the Native Hawaiian Education 
Council, Papa Ola Lokahi, and the Native Hawaiian Health Care Systems 
to deliver and coordinate services to Native Hawaiian communities. 
Unlike American Indian tribes, our organizations are not equipped or 
empowered to exercise certain governmental functions, including 
providing law enforcement and other public safety services. As such, 
funding should be allocated to the State and County entities in Hawai`i 
that provide these services to our communities. However, our experience 
is that when Native Hawaiians are not specifically identified, or 
funding is not set aside, the needs of our communities may be 
overlooked. Thus, Native Hawaiian-serving organizations should be 
empowered and utilized as an effective service-delivery system to the 
extent possible. If certain funding must ultimately pass through State 
and County agencies, it is important that the trust responsibility to 
Native Hawaiians is specifically identified and acknowledged, so that 
our communities can ultimately realize the benefits of these 
allocations.
    Over the past several decades, the Native Hawaiian Health Care 
Improvement Act, the Hawaiian Homelands Homeownership Act, and the 
Native Hawaiian Education Act has provided resources to the Native 
Hawaiian community through a variety of programs and services. Further, 
the Native Hawaiian Revolving Loan Fund-administered by OHA-and the 
U.S. Department of Treasury's Community Development Financial 
Institutions (CDFI) fund Native American CDFI Assistance Program have 
supported the emergence and growth of Native Hawaiian businesses. We 
urge this committee to strengthen and expand these programs to achieve 
parity with other Native American groups, and further support Native 
Hawaiian self-determination.
Native Hawaiian Health
    Similar to our Indigenous relatives on the continent, there are 
significant health disparities among Native Hawaiian and non-Native 
populations. In response to these disparities, Congress enacted the 
Native Hawaiian Health Care Act in 1988, which was later retitled as 
the Native Hawaiian Health Care Improvement Act (NHHCIA) (Pub. L. 111-
148, title X,  10221(a), Mar. 23, 2010, 124 Stat. 935). OHA recommends 
that the NHHCIA be permanently reauthorized, like the Indian Health 
Care Improvement Act was in 2009, and that all Congressionally 
authorized appropriations remain available until expended.
    The NHHCIA established the Native Hawaiian Health Care program, 
which funds the Native Hawaiian Health Care Systems (NHHCSs) 
administered by Papa Ola Lokahi (POL). Together the five Systems on the 
islands of Kaua`i, O`ahu, Maui, Moloka`i, and Hawai`i provide primary 
health care, behavioral health, and dental services. In addition, the 
Systems provide health education to manage disease, health related 
transportation, and other services. NHHCIA also established the Native 
Hawaiian Health Scholarship Program (NHHSP) for Native Hawaiians 
pursuing careers in designated health care professions. It supports 
culturally appropriate training and the placement of scholars in 
underserved Native Hawaiian communities following the completion of 
their education. More than 300 scholarships have been awarded through 
this program and most program alumni work in Hawai`i.
    The pandemic highlighted the urgent need for several amendments to 
the NHHCIA. This includes increasing funding to the NHHCIA to expand 
Native Hawaiian health resources; removing the matching requirements 
applied to the NHHCSs for parity with other Native health care 
providers; making the NHHCSs eligible for 100 percent of the Federal 
Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) as well as the Prospective Payment 
System (PPS) reimbursement rate; expanding Federal Tort Claims Act 
coverage to POL, the Systems, and their employees in parity with other 
Native health care providers; allowing federal program funding to be 
used to collect and analyze health and program data which currently 
falls under the ten percent administrative cost cap for the program; 
allowing the Systems to be a specific eligibility group for 
supplemental federal funding streams; and providing a tax exemption for 
the NHHSP. We urge the Committee to support increased funding for and 
technical amendments to the NHHCIA to address avoidable inequalities 
and health care disparities.
    OHA specifically acknowledges and thanks you, Chairman Schatz, for 
securing additional funding in the FY 2023 Omnibus Appropriations Bill 
to provide access to health education and promotion, disease prevention 
and basic primary care services for Native Hawaiians.
Native Hawaiian Housing
    The median price for a single-family home in Hawai`i is $870,250, 
but differs by county ranging from $539,000 in Hawai`i county to 
$1,162,500 in Maui county. \12\ Of the 28,155 Native Hawaiians in 
rental units in Hawai`i, 54.9 percent of them are cost-burdened, paying 
more than 30 percent of their income to rent. On O`ahu 42 percent of 
individuals included in the annual Point in Time count of unsheltered 
homeless were Native Hawaiians. \13\ As such, the Hawaiian Homelands 
Homeownership Act (HHHA) plays a crucial role in supporting the 
Department of Hawaiian Homelands' (DHHL) mission-to develop and deliver 
land and housing to Native Hawaiians. Congress enacted the HHHA in 
2000. The HHHA established the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant 
(NHHBG) program and the Section 184A Loan Guarantees for Native 
Hawaiian Housing. The NHHBG provides much needed funding to DHHL to 
deliver new construction, rehabilitation, infrastructure, and various 
support services to beneficiaries living on DHHL lands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ Hawai`i Realtors. https://www.hawaiirealtors.com/resources/
housing-trends-2/, retrieved February 10, 2023.
    \13\ Partners in Care O'ahu Continuum of Care (2022). Native 
Hawaiian Stub-Report: 2022 Point in Time Count. https://
static1.squarespace.com/static/5db76f1aadbeba4fb77280f1/t/
63926c530aa9a91e44d2e5a4/1670540372709/Native+Hawaiian+Sub-
Report+PITC2022+FINAL.pdf, retrieved February 10, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The 184A Loan Guarantee program provides eligible beneficiaries 
with access to construction capital on DHHL lands by fully guaranteeing 
principal and interest due on loans. The program currently serves 
owner-occupant single family dwellings on the DHHL lands. To address 
housing needs, DHHL has used NHHBG funds for emergency rental 
assistance for eligible Native Hawaiians; rental subsidies for lower 
income elderly; rehabilitation of homes primarily for elderly or 
disabled residents; homeownership opportunities for lower income 
working families; and homeownership and rental counseling to address 
barriers experienced by Native Hawaiians. We urge this Committee to 
support increased funding for, and expansion of the NHHBG and 184A Loan 
Guarantee programs.
Native Hawaiian Economic Well-Being
    Economic well-being and opportunity are central to the ability of 
any community to exercise self-determination. Of the 5 largest groups 
in Hawai`i (White, Filipino, Native Hawaiian, Japanese, and Chinese), 
Native Hawaiians have the lowest median income at $73,065. \14\ This is 
$10,000 less than the State median income. The per capita income for 
Native Hawaiians is $25,612 compared to the state per capita income of 
$36,989. \15\ Of the 5 major race groups, Native Hawaiians have the 
highest percent (15.5 percent) of families in poverty. \16\ There are 
several economic development and access to capital programs that serve 
Native Hawaiians, including the Department of the Treasury (Treasury), 
Native American Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI), 
Minority Depository Institutions (MDI), and the Native Hawaiian 
Revolving Loan Fund (NHRLF). The Native Hawaiian community has also 
benefitted from Treasury's Emergency Rental Assistance, Homeowner 
Assistance Fund, Capital Projects Fund and Small Business Credit 
Initiative, Emergency Capital Investment Program, Rapid Response 
Program, and Native American CDFI Assistance Program. In addition, 
Native Hawaiian organizations are eligible to receive additional funds 
as sub-recipients to the state and/or counties, and we recommend the 
Committee consider OHA's state agency status as an accountable 
mechanism for federal funds to quickly flow to Native Hawaiian 
communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ Native Hawaiian Data Book (2021). Chapter 4 Income. Table 4.20 
Household Income by Race-Ethnicity in Hawai`i: 2019. http://
www.ohadatabook.com/DB2021.html, retrieved February 10, 2023.
    \15\ Native Hawaiian Data Book (2021). Chapter 4 Income. Table 4.03 
Per Capita Personal Income by Race-Ethnicity and Selected 
Characteristics in Hawai`i: 2019. http://www.ohadatabook.com/
DB2021.html.
    \16\ Native Hawaiian Data Book (2021). Chapter 8 Human Services. 
Table 8.13 Families Below Poverty Level by Race-Ethnicity in Hawai`i: 
2019. http://www.ohadatabook.com/DB2021.html, retrieved February 10, 
2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For example, in its nearly three decades in operation under OHA's 
administration, NHRLF closed approximately 2,700 loans valued at more 
than $63 million of lending to Native Hawaiian businesses and 
individuals. In its 2021 Report to Congress, NHRLF reported that 
borrowers: improved their overall economic wellbeing during the loan 
period; experienced improved preconditions to financial stability after 
receiving a NHRLF loan; and increased their income due to education and 
business loans. The value of NHRLF borrowers' financial and non-
financial assets increased over time, with smaller gains resulting from 
home improvement loans. As a result of increased asset value, the 
average net worth of OHA borrowers grew over the loan period; and 
Native Hawaiian-owned businesses with NHRLF loans improved their 
financial performance from before the loan was received to 2019.
    However, the devasting impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Hawai`i's 
economy derailed the positive outcomes NHRLF borrowers experienced over 
the loan period in the areas of economic wellbeing, preconditions to 
financial stability, and income. Accordingly, OHA asks the Committee to 
support programmatic fixes to NHRLF, including ending the demonstration 
status of the program, removing restrictions on outdated unallowable 
loan activities, and reducing the Native Hawaiian ownership percentage 
requirement from 100 to 50--all to create a broader pipeline of 
programming and funding for Native Hawaiian economic development.
Native Hawaiian Education
    Congress established the Native Hawaiian Education Program the 
Native Hawaiian Education Act (NHEA) for the following four purposes:

         1) ``To authorize and develop innovative educational programs 
        to assist Native Hawaiians;

         2) ``To provide direction and guidance to appropriate Federal, 
        State, and local agencies to focus resources, including 
        resources made available under this part, on Native Hawaiian 
        education, and to provide periodic assessment and data 
        collection;

         3) ``To supplement and expand programs and authorities in the 
        area of education to further the purposes of this title; and

         4) ``To encourage the maximum participation of Native 
        Hawaiians in planning and management of Native Hawaiian 
        education programs.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ 20 U.S.C. 7513

    Data helps to set the context of the struggles of our keiki 
(children) and `opio (youth), as well as the need for increased funding 
and support for the NHEA. While Native Hawaiian students make up 23.7 
percent of the total student population in Hawai`i, they account for 
over 50 percent of the students considered chronically absent, 41 
percent of suspensions, and 35 percent of students enrolled in special 
education. \18\ Mandatory testing through the No Child Left Behind Act 
and the Every Student Succeeds Act has revealed that Native Hawaiian 
students have continued to lag behind other student groups--scoring 
second to the lowest of all student groups in both reading and math, 
just above another Indigenous group, Pacific Island students. In 2014, 
the State Department of Education transitioned from the Hawai'i State 
Assessment to the Smarter Balanced Assessment. The latest test scores 
for School Year 2021-2022 show that only 35.5 percent of Native 
Hawaiian students met or exceeded proficiency in English Language Arts 
compared to 52.4 percent of all students, and 21.8 percent in Math 
compared to 38.5 percent of all students. \19\ Given the great need of 
our students, OHA appreciates the funding provided in the FY 2023 
Omnibus Appropriation Bill, which will support programs that strengthen 
Native Hawaiian culture and education, and provide for the 
construction, renovation and modernization of public schools that 
predominantly serve Native Hawaiian students. We urge the Committee to 
continue Congress' focus on Native Hawaiian education and support 
increased funding for the Native Hawaiian Education Program in FY 2024; 
also to help us ensure that implementation of the NHEA is done in 
consultation with stakeholders, including the Native Hawaiian Education 
Council.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ Native Hawaiian Data Book (2021). Chapter 6 Education. Tables 
6.15 Chronic Absenteeism in Native Hawaiian Public School Studdents by 
Island, School District, School Complex, Grade, and School in Hawai`i: 
SY2014-2015 to SY2017-18, Table 6.16 Public School Students Receiving a 
Suspension by Grade in Hawai`i: SY2012-2013 to SY2017-2018, Table 6.07 
Public School Special Education (SPED) Students by Island, School 
District, School Complex, Grade, and School in Hawai`i: SY2015 to 
SY2017-18, Table 6.01 Public Schools Race-Ethnicity of Students in 
Hawai`i: SY2011-2012 to SY2020-2021. http://www.ohadatabook.com/
DB2021.html, retrieved February 10, 2023.

    \19\ State of Hawaii Department of Education Accountability Data 
Center. https://adc.hidoe.us/#/proficiency, retrieved February 10, 
2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safeguarding Native Hawaiian Women, Children, and Families
    Pursuant to H.C.R. 11, the Hawai`i State Commission on the Status 
of Women (CSW) convened a Task Force to study Missing and Murdered 
Native Hawaiian Women and Girls (MMNHWG). The Missing and Murdered 
Native Hawaiian Women and Girls Task Force (MMNHWG TF) is administered 
through OHA and the Hawai`i State Commission on the Status of Women, 
and comprises individuals representing over 22 governmental and non-
governmental organizations across Hawai`i that provide services to 
those who are impacted by violence against Native Hawaiians.
    Native Hawaiian women and girls experience violence at rates 
disproportionate to their population size. \20\ However, Native 
Hawaiians have largely been left out of the federal policy discourse 
and resource allocation to address violence against Indigenous 
communities in the United States. Last year (2022) marked the first 
year that Native Hawaiians were formally recognized by a United States 
President as belonging to the Indigenous populations disproportionately 
impacted by interpersonal and systemic violence that leads to Native 
women and girls being murdered and missing. \21\ We urge the Committee 
to include Native Hawaiians in federal policy initiatives, funding, and 
legislation aimed at responding to the crisis of murdered and missing 
Indigenous women and girls (MMIWG).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ Missing and Murdered Native Hawaiian Women and Girls Task 
Force Report (Task Force Report), at 4. https://www.oha.org/wp-content/
uploads/MMNHWG-Report_Web.pdf, retrieved March 2, 2023.
    \21\ Task Force Report, at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Hawai`i has the eighth highest rate of missing persons per capita 
in the Nation at 7.5 missing people per 100,000 residents. \22\ More 
than a quarter of missing girls in Hawai`i are Native Hawaiian. \23\ 
According to the first report and study conducted by the MMNHWG TF, 
while only 10.2 percent of the total population of Hawai`i identifies 
as a Native Hawaiian female, from 2011-2021, 26 percent of all missing 
females age 17 and below were Native Hawaiian/part-Hawaiian girls and 
represented 13 percent of all missing children's cases in Hawai`i. \24\ 
According to the Missing Children's Center Hawai`i (MCCH), the average 
age of a missing child is 15-years old, 77 percent are female, and 84 
percent are Native Hawaiian. \25\ On Hawai`i Island, Native Hawaiian 
children ages 15-17 represent the highest number of missing children's 
cases. \26\ From 2018-2021, there were 182 cases of missing Native 
Hawaiian girls on Hawai`i Island, higher than any other racial group. 
\27\ Because of a lack of reporting and accessible data, statistics on 
MMNHWG are limited and the true scope of this crises is likely much 
larger than OHA can demonstrate at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ Task Force Report, at 5
    \23\ Task Force Report, at 5
    \24\ Task Force Report, at 16.
    \25\ Task Force Report, at 16.
    \26\ Task Force Report, at 5.
    \27\ Task Force Report, at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Domestic Violence
    Native Hawaiian women experience gender-based violence, such as 
domestic violence and sexual assault, at rates higher than any other 
population in Hawai`i. \28\ Domestic violence is the leading cause of 
homelessness for women and children. \29\ 22 percent of O`ahu's 
homeless Native Hawaiian population report experiencing intimate 
partner violence compared to 18 percent of non-Hawaiians. \30\ Also, 22 
percent of domestic violence survivors filing a Temporary Restraining 
Order are Native Hawaiians. \31\ OHA appreciates the technical 
amendments to the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) that were signed 
into law in the 117th Congress, which will greatly support Native 
Hawaiian survivors of gender-based violence. OHA requests that this 
Committee include Native Hawaiians in VAWA-related funding, oversight, 
and legislation in the 118th Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\ Task Force Report, at 10.
    \29\ Task Force Report, at 17.
    \30\ Task Force Report, at 17.
    \31\ Task Force Report, at 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial Exploitation
    Indigenous people, including Native Hawaiians, are at a higher risk 
of human trafficking. There are at least 85 known sex traffickers in 
Hawai`i and the majority (43 percent) of sex trafficking cases in 
Hawai`i are Native Hawaiian girls trafficked in Waikiki, O`ahu. \32\ 57 
percent of participants served through the Mana`olana Program, which 
provides free comprehensive case management for victims of human 
trafficking, are Native Hawaiian females. \33\ 59 percent of clients 
served through Susannah Wesley Community Center between October 2021 
and May 2022 are trafficking victims. \34\ 37 percent of cases are sex 
trafficking cases, the majority (86 percent) are female and (45 
percent) are Native Hawaiian/part-Native Hawaiian or other Pacific 
Islander. \35\ Given these alarming statistics and realities, OHA 
requests that Native Hawaiians are included in any legislation or 
funding to combat human trafficking in Indigenous communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\ Task Force Report, at 16.
    \33\ Task Force Report, at 5.
    \34\ Task Force Report, at 17.
    \35\ Task Force Report, at 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Child Sexual Assault and Abuse
    Native Hawaiian children are particularly vulnerable to 
exploitation and abuse, and are overrepresented in the Hawai`i foster 
care system. \36\ In 2019, 45 percent of children in foster care in 
Hawai`i were Native Hawaiian. \37\ 44.4 percent of ``street youth,'' 
including those who are homeless and runaways, are Native Hawaiian, the 
largest percentage of any group in Hawai'i. \38\ According to the State 
Department of Human Services, a victim of child abuse is likely to be 7 
years of age (median), female (53.0 percent), and Hawaiian or Part-
Hawaiian (39.8 percent). \39\ In 2019, law enforcement in Hawai`i began 
conducting a series of criminal interventions through Operation Keiki 
Shield (Operation), aimed at identifying predators who approach 
children online for sex or sexual activities. \40\ Out of all those 
arrested through the Operation, 38 percent were active-duty U.S. 
military personnel. \41\ These military personnel were arrested both 
off and on U.S. military bases as part of non-military covert 
operations that targeted civilians off-base and ``military ops'' 
between the military and local law enforcement to arrest on-base 
offenders who commit Internet-facilitated sexual crimes against 
children. Notably, 25 percent of the offenders arrested in a March 2019 
Operation, which was the only documented non-military Operation on 
O`ahu since 2019, were male U.S. military personnel. \42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \36\ Task Force Report, at 14.
    \37\ Task Force Report, at 14.
    \38\ Task Force Report, at 14.
    \39\ A Statistical Report on Child Abuse and Neglect in Hawai`i 
(2021) at 6, 6.1, 8, available at https://humanservices.hawaii.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2023/01/2021-CAN-report-print.pdf, retrieved March 2, 
2023.
    \40\ Task Force Report, at 12.
    \41\ Task Force Report, at 17.
    \42\ Task Force Report, at 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Greater congressional attention to this issue is necessary for the 
safety of our communities, and our children. OHA would like the 
Committee's assistance in requesting further engagement and 
consultation with federal and U.S. military law enforcement partners to 
address these alarming statistics.
Conclusion
    Thank you for this opportunity to testify and share OHA's 
priorities for the 118th Congress and thank you for your continued 
attention to Native Hawaiian issues. We look forward to continuing our 
collaborative engagement with the Committee and Congress to ensure the 
federal trust responsibility to Native Hawaiians is upheld.
    A hui hou (until we meet again),

    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    Ms. Borromeo, please proceed.

         STATEMENT OF NICOLE BORROMEO, EXECUTIVE VICE 
    PRESIDENT/GENERAL COUNSEL, ALASKA FEDERATION OF NATIVES

    Ms. Borromeo. Aloha, Chairman Schatz, Senator Murkowski, 
and aloha also to members of the Senate Committee on Indian 
Affairs.
    The Alaska Federation of Natives appreciates the 
opportunity to testify today on the Native communities' 
priorities for the 118th Congress. My name is Nicole Borromeo, 
and I have the distinct pleasure of serving as AFN's Executive 
Vice President and General Counsel.
    Established in 1966 to achieve a fair and just settlement 
of our aboriginal land claims, AFN is the largest statewide 
Native organization in Alaska today. Our mission is to advance 
and enhance the political, economic, social, and cultural voice 
of Alaska Natives on issues of mutual concern including in the 
U.S. Congress, on behalf of all of Alaska's federally 
recognized tribes, tribal organizations, and Alaska Native 
Corporations.
    Today I am joined by my 11-year-old son, Kellan. I would 
like to recognize him to help illustrate what our number one 
priority as Alaska Natives in this Congress is. That is, 
capitalizing on this once-in-a-lifetime investment for all of 
those who come after us, including Kellan, his children and his 
children's children.
    Chairman Schatz, Vice Chair Murkowski, this Committee, 
together with your colleagues, has secured more than $35 
billion in tribal set-asides across six major economic relief 
recovery bills, the largest being the Infrastructure and 
Investment Jobs Act, which has $13 billion earmarked for tribal 
communities and Native entities. This is being implemented 
widely across every Federal agency right now.
    However, implementation has become a major challenge. 
Streamlining implementation has become our number one priority 
as Alaska Natives. Without reform, the laws that you worked so 
hard to enact will die on the vine at the agency level.
    To prevent this from happening, AFN has four succinct 
recommendations. We feel as though we have subject matter 
authority in presenting these recommendations, because for the 
last two and a half years, we have been running a navigator 
program on behalf of the entire Alaska Native community. 
Senator Murkowski alluded to it earlier.
    The navigator program's challenge is to track, amend laws 
as they move through Congress, and then also to track and amend 
implementation at the agency level, when the Federal agencies 
are implementing the programs in a way that doesn't benefit the 
Alaska Native community or Indian Country generally.
    Our first recommendation to this Committee is to draft 
future legislation that makes clear consortium applications are 
permitted by tribes or eligible entities in line with settled 
principles of tribal self-governance and Native self-
determination.
    Our second recommendation is to waive match requirements 
for small and needy tribes. These tribes have less than 
$200,000 annual operating revenue, and the match requirement is 
akin to offering them free lifetime oil changes when they don't 
have a car in which an oil change can be performed.
    Our third recommendation is to allow eligible entities, 
including most notable our small and needy tribes, to report on 
an annual basis instead of quarterly reporting. One grant 
program, to give you an example of this, is the good resilience 
program which is being implemented right now at the Department 
of Energy. That is a five-year program with a formula fund 
allocation that is non-competitive.
    However, to secure this about $65,000 annually, every tribe 
has to report on a quarterly basis. In the end, this will 
prevent more tribes from accessing these funds than securing 
them when grid maintenance is desperately needed.
    Finally, we would like to see eligible entities be able to 
submit their compliance and reports via the regular U.S. Postal 
Service versus online. Again, many of the programs and the laws 
that we have seen in Indian Country over the last few years 
have been dedicated to bringing broadband to our tribal 
communities and Native villages.
    But many of the eligible entities that are eligible to 
apply for them do not have broadband necessary to make that 
application in the first place. That relates back to our first 
recommendation, which is to allow a consortium application, so 
organizations like AFN and similar to us can help our tribes 
secure this once-in-a-lifetime investment.
    Quyanaa, mahalo, for your commitment to ensuring Alaska 
Natives and Native Hawaiians and American Indians have the 
benefits intended by this historic investment in our 
communities. I welcome the opportunity to answer any questions.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Borromeo follows:]

Prepared Statement of Nicole Borromeo, Executive Vice President/General 
                 Counsel, Alaska Federation of Natives
I. Introduction
    Thank you, Chairman Schatz, Vice-Chair Murkowski, and Members of 
the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, for inviting me to testify 
today on ``Native Communities' Priorities for the 118th Congress.'' My 
name is Nicole Borromeo, and I am the Executive Vice-President and 
General Counsel of the Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN). \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Shareholder of Doyon, Limited, the ANCSA regional corporation 
for Interior Alaska, and the Board Chairman for MTNT, Ltd., the ANCSA 
village corporation representing four Interior Alaska villages. Member 
of the Alaska Redistricting Board; the U.S. Census Bureau's National 
Advisory Committee on Race, Ethnicity, and Other Populations; and the 
U.S. Department of Energy's Indian Country Energy and Infrastructure 
Workgroup. Founding Board Member of Justice Not Politics Alaska, a 
nonpartisan organization promoting the independence of Alaska's 
judiciary. Mentor in the Color of Justice Program. J.D., University of 
Washington; B.A., the University of Alaska-Anchorage. I reside in 
Anchorage with my husband and our four children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    AFN is the largest statewide Native membership organization in 
Alaska. We serve 229 Indian tribes--nearly half the tribes in the 
country--and more than 180 Alaska Native corporations created by 
Congress \2\ to guide the economic goals of the Alaska Native Claims 
Settlement Act (ANCSA). We also serve nearly 40 regional and other 
statewide tribal organizations who exercise delegated tribal authority 
to accomplish a wide variety of self-governance matters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ 43 U.S.C.  1601 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The post-pandemic work this Committee has accomplished is 
transforming Indian country and Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian 
communities in real time. However, while you and your colleagues have 
carved out billions in set-asides to bring our rural Native villages 
into the 21st century, some of the programs you designed have been 
deployed in a way at the agency level that makes them nearly 
inaccessible to the poorest tribal communities. This is especially true 
for over 300 ``small and needy'' tribes from Alaska to Oklahoma and 
from Minnesota to Montana.
    If changes are not made, more than 300 of these ``small and needy'' 
tribes--who by definition receive less than $200,000 annually in 
revenue--will be excluded from the very programs you worked so hard to 
create.
    ``Small and needy'' tribes often have one part-time tribal 
administrator and do not have money to pay for high priced grant 
writers or consultants. Few have funds to make the necessary federal 
matches. More than 200 Alaska Native villages are ``unserved'' by 
broadband, yet they are required to submit grant applications online 
using non-existing broadband. Most do not allow grant applications and 
reports to be submitted using the United States Postal Service. That is 
why 210 ``small and needy tribes'' in Alaska must rely on tribal 
organizations with dedicated grant writing departments--and broadband 
connections--to help them apply for federal grants and ensure that 
compliance reports are submitted on time.
    We recommend you immediately enact a technical corrections bill to 
provide a global solution to these problems that would:

         1. Allow tribal organizations to submit consortia applications 
        on behalf of ``eligible entities,''--including tribal 
        governments, if and only if, a tribe makes a program specific 
        designation to the tribal organization in writing.

         2. Allow tribal consortia and ``small and needy'' tribes to 
        submit compliance reports on an annual basis rather than 
        quarterly.

         3. Allow Native entities without broadband to submit grant 
        applications through the United States Postal Service rather 
        than online.

         4. Waive any statutory matches for ``small and needy tribes'' 
        notwithstanding any other provision of law.

I. Permit Tribal Organizations to Submit Consortia Applications on 
        Behalf of Tribes
    Many of Alaska's 229 tribes have been designated by the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs (BIA) as ``small and needy.'' Small is defined as having 
fewer than 1,500 enrolled tribal members. Needy is defined as having 
less than $160,000 in income ($200,000 for Alaska).
    Many of these ``small and needy'' tribes have a skeleton staff of 
one or maybe two people who often work part-time, yet these tribes are 
often the ones with the greatest needs, including:

  No running water and open sewers

  No broadband

  Extremely high poverty rates

  Energy costs 1,000 times the national average--$1.50 per 
        kilowatt hour versus 15 cents

    These tribes do not have the capacity to apply for federal grants 
in their own right, and instead rely on their affiliated tribal 
organizations to submit applications for them. Yet unless Congress 
specifically authorizes a tribal organization to apply for a federal 
program for the tribes some federal agencies reject applications from 
tribal organizations.
    A recent example is the Department of Energy (DOE) Grid Resilience 
Program for Indian tribes. Together with the Senate Natural Resources 
Committee, this Committee created a separate formula grant program for 
Indian tribes which provides roughly $60,000 per year per tribes. Each 
tribe must submit an annual application, an annual work plan, four 
compliance reports, and an annual financial statement--seven documents. 
All of those must be submitted online--even if the Native village or 
tribal community has no broadband connection. Over the four-year life 
of the program, each tribe will have to submit 28 online documents for 
a total of $300,000 in federal funding. If each eligible tribe in 
Alaska applies for the program, Alaskans alone will submit 11,480 
documents to DOE. That is excessive.
    By comparison, if each of Alaska's 12 regional tribal organizations 
were able to submit an application on behalf of their tribal members, 
there would still be 48 applications over four years, but that would be 
a lot better than 1,640 applications. Likewise, if tribes could submit 
their applications online, and compliance reports could be submitted 
annually rather than quarterly, suddenly the program becomes much more 
attractive. Finally, DOE has interpreted Section 40101(d) of the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) to require up to a 115 
percent tribal match--which puts the entire grid program out of reach 
for nearly all ``small and needy'' tribes. AFN has recommendations on 
how to address each of these issues. At the heart of our solution is 
allowing consortia application for every federal grant program. This is 
a proven model that other agencies have permitted. For example, AFN 
submitted consortia applications, with the written consent and 
direction of eligible Indian tribes, to the:

         1. Department of Commerce Digital Equity Act tribal set-aside 
        on behalf of 147 eligible Indian tribes;

         2. Department of Commerce Tribal Broadband Connectivity 
        Program on behalf of more than 74 Indian tribes and tribal 
        organizations;

         3. Department of the Treasury Capital Projects Program on 
        behalf of 56 Indian tribes; and

         4. Department of the Treasury State Small Business Credit 
        Initiative Program on behalf of 129 Indian tribes (through the 
        Alaska Small Business Development Center).

    Nearly every one of Alaska's federally recognized tribes belongs to 
at least one and sometimes as many as five tribal organizations--
regional Native Tribally Designated Housing Entities (TDHEs), regional 
non-profit tribal health organizations, regional non-profit tribal 
organizations, and several statewide tribal organizations like AFN or 
the Congressionally created Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium 
(ANTHC). In recognition of their inherent government rights and self-
determination, tribes have the power to designate a tribal organization 
to apply for a grant on its behalf, administer that grant, and ensure 
that compliance reports are timely filed. The federal government should 
recognize that power of designation across each of its agencies.
    Fortunately, nearly every federal department and agency has 
permitted tribal organizations to submit consortia applications on 
behalf of their tribal members, but some agencies have been better than 
others. Every time a new program is unveiled, organizations like ours 
has to go to work to convince the department, agency, and program 
office to allow consortia applications. Often, we end up in the general 
counsel's office with lawyers who little, if any, federal Indian law 
experience. This is a laborious and time-consuming process which 
requires us to produce legal memoranda and sometimes requires us to go 
farther up the chain to the Secretary, the Director of the Office of 
Management and Budget, or even the White House. It does not, and should 
not, have to be this way.
    To solve this problem going forward, and on a global basis, AFN 
recommends the following legislative language. This would provide a 
blanket authorization for tribal organizations to submit applications 
on behalf of requesting tribes. This could be done through a 
freestanding bill, or as a rider to the Financial Services 
Appropriations bill. Below is draft language for your consideration:

         Sec.__. Hereafter, notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
        a ``tribal organization'' as defined in Section 4(l) of P.L. 
        93-638 may submit or file any grant application or other 
        request for federal financial assistance to any federal 
        department, agency, commission, independent agency, or 
        instrumentality of the federal government on behalf of an 
        ``Indian tribe'' as defined in Section 4(e) of P.L. 93-638 so 
        long as such application or request is accompanied by a tribal 
        resolution or letter authorizing such tribal organization to 
        submit the application on behalf of such Indian tribe.

II. Allow ``Small And Needy'' Tribes or Consortia Representing Them to 
        Submit Compliance and Finanacial Reports on an Annual Basis 
        Rather Than a Quarterly Basis
    A major hurdle encountered by a number of Alaska Native Tribes are 
the quarterly compliance reports. Just for one federal program, the 
Department of Energy Grid Resilience Program, each eligible Indian 
Tribe must submit some 16 compliance reports over the life of the 
program for a total of $300,000 in federal funding. If all the eligible 
Alaska tribes apply for this grid grant, collectively they will be 
forced to submit some 1,640 compliance reports each year--or 6,540 over 
the life of the program. What purpose does this serve other than 
requiring DOE to spend its money pushing paper rather than fixing the 
grid?
    A quarterly compliance regime is onerous for ``small and needy'' 
tribes with just one part-time administrator. Tribes are eligible for 
more than 400 federal grant programs according to the White House--a 
tribute to the work of this Committee. But when tribal administrators 
are consumed with submitting applications for these once in a lifetime 
opportunities, imposing overwhelming and unnecessary compliance 
requirements on them for small amount of money creates a systemic 
obstacle to participation. What happens if a tribe fails to submit a 
compliance report in a timely manner? They risk jeopardizing all of 
their future federal funding.
    To address this issue, AFN recommends the following legislation 
which again can be done as part of a free-standing bill or included in 
the Financial Services Appropriations bill:

         Sec.__. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, ``small 
        and needy'' Indian tribes as defined by the Bureau of Indian 
        Affairs, or consortia including such Indian tribes, that have 
        been awarded grants or other federal financial assistance shall 
        submit annual compliance reports and financial reports in lieu 
        of quarterly reports.

    III. Permit Tribes, Tribal Organizations, Native Corporations, and 
Native Hawaiian Organizations to Submit a Paper Grant Application if 
Their Community is ``Unserved'' by Broadband
    A major hurdle encountered by a number of Alaska Native entities 
when presented with an Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) 
grant opportunity is most federal program applications can only be 
submitted electronically. Unfortunately, this requirement excludes many 
remote Alaska tribes and Native corporations and serves as a form of 
structural exclusion. For example, the Tribal Broadband Connectivity 
Program preferred that ``eligible entities'' submit their applications 
online for the $1 billion that was set-aside for tribes. Online 
applications were strongly encouraged. That requirement seems overly 
stringent.
    In the case of Rampart, a small, rural, Native village, the Tribal 
Administrator had to float down a portion of the raging Yukon River by 
skiff for 20 miles, get out on the other side of the river, walk 
several miles to a road, only to hitchhike to the nearest city with 
broadband to submit the Tribe's application for a federal IIJA program. 
This is not fair to similarly situated tribes. When tribes, Native 
corporations, tribal organizations (and Native Hawaiian organizations) 
do not have access to reliable broadband, they should be encouraged to 
mail paper copies of their applications to federal agencies.
    One federal agency at the Department of Health and Human Services 
when confronted with this scenario said, ``it's not our problem.'' Only 
six of Alaska's 229 tribes were able to participate in that agency's 
programs. When AFN inquired about making an exception to the rule, we 
were told that no exceptions could or would be made.
    In contrast, the Rural Development Administration which is used to 
dealing with rural communities allows tribes with inadequate broadband 
to submit paper applications. They should be the model.
    AFN recommends this Committee champion an amendment that applies 
government wide requiring all federal agencies to accept paper 
applications when eligible Native entities have inadequate broadband. 
This could be a stand-alone bill, or an amendment to the General 
Provisions in the Financial Services Appropriations bill. Draft 
language for purposes of the Committee's consideration is as follows:

         Sec.__. Hereafter, notwithstanding any other provision of law 
        or requirement of a Notice of Funding Opportunity or similar 
        instrument, any grant application or request for assistance may 
        be submitted by United States mail or by mailing service by 
        tribes, tribal organizations, Alaska Native Corporations, or 
        Native Hawaiian organizations located in communities unserved 
        by broadband as defined by the National Telecommunications and 
        Information Administration, so long as such application or 
        request is postmarked or marked by the mailing service no later 
        than the application deadline and applicant retains the receipt 
        of mailing as proof of timely filing.

IV. Waive Matching Requiresments for ``Small and Needy'' Tribes
    In 1997 Congress recognized that not all tribes have benefitted 
from Indian gaming operations, oil and gas leases, or other economic 
development activities. Many live in abject poverty without even the 
most basic resources to operate their tribal governments.
    There are some 310 ``small and needy'' tribes across the country 
including California, New York, Montana, Minnesota, Nevada, Michigan, 
and Oklahoma--as well as Alaska--many without even the most basic 
services like running water or human waste disposal. AFN recommends 
that this Committee hold a hearing on the needs of ``small and needy'' 
tribes. In the meantime, the very programs you designed to help small 
and needy tribes are placed out of their reach by sometimes onerous 
matching requirements.
    AFN recommends that the Committee enact legislation that 
statutorily waives the tribal match for these poorest Indian tribes.

         Sec.__. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any 
        matching requirements for Indian tribes designated by the 
        Bureau of Indian Affairs as ``small and needy'' are waived.

V. Conclusion
    Thank you again for inviting AFN to testify as part of today's 
hearing on ``Native Communities' Priorities for the 118th Congress.'' 
We are happy to supplement our written testimony if requested.

    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    Ms. Lawrence, please proceed.

STATEMENT OF KARI JO LAWRENCE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INTERTRIBAL 
                      AGRICULTURE COUNCIL

    Ms. Lawrence. Chairman Schatz, Vice Chair Murkowski, and 
members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to 
submit testimony as it relates to agriculture priorities in 
Native communities in 2023. I am Kari Jo Lawrence, the 
Executive Director of the Intertribal Agriculture Council and a 
co-chair of the Native Farm Bill Coalition.
    For 35 years, the IAC has supported tribal producers across 
the Country through technical assistance, market access, 
natural resources programs, and advocacy around the policies 
that govern the tribal agriculture landscape. With 2023 marking 
a Farm Bill reauthorization year, the IAC and its co-stewards 
of the Native Farm Bill Coalition are elevating tribal 
agriculture priorities, some of which are unique to USDA 
programing, but many address the Bureau of Indian Affairs 
oversight of tribal lands.
    The Native Farm Bill Coalition has received feedback from 
tribal leaders offering resounding support for greater 638 
contracting authority throughout USDA programming and greater 
parity. Six thirty-eight authority is an acknowledgement of 
tribal sovereignty that opens the door to food purchasing 
decisions, allowing for more tribally produced foods that 
support tribal economies.
    The two 638 pilot projects authorized in the 2018 Farm Bill 
are a step in the right direction and offer a strong foundation 
for permanent and expanded 638 authorities in 2023. At minimum, 
the existing pilot projects should be made permanent, but there 
is strong support for expansion. Indian Country rarely fits 
neatly within the county and State-based frameworks under which 
most USDA programs operate, resulting in inconsistent access to 
USDA programs.
    Credit, conservation, commodities, and crop insurance are 
foundational to all agriculture producers. But accessing these 
presents unique challenges to tribal producers, often due to 
the status of the land on which they operate.
    Indian Country is a credit desert that affords tribal 
producers few options for the capital necessary for agriculture 
operations. Native CDFIs have been a key source for credit for 
tribal producers, but have limitations. The Farm Service Agency 
needs greater flexibility and Native CDFIs need resources to 
bridge or fill the credit gap that exists. Also, greater 
education and accountability on the lender side are critical to 
improving access to credit.
    Risk is an inherent component of agriculture, and the 
commodity conservation and crop insurance titles of the Farm 
Bill are intended to guard against some of these risks. But the 
current framework under which the programs supported by these 
titles operate is often ill-suited to meet the needs of tribal 
producers, because USDA programs are often administered at a 
county or State committee level. Add in BIA oversight, and 
tribal producers find themselves responsible for navigating a 
maze of bureaucracy between two Federal agencies.
    Without cooperation and accountability at BIA and every 
office across Indian Country, the Farm Bill will fall short of 
providing comprehensive improvements to tribal agriculture. 
Many tribal producers express frustration around BIA's land 
management and lease enforcement practices, often citing BIA 
delays and lack of transparency. Clearer processes and 
timelines around agriculture leases, enforcement of lease 
terms, and clarity around producers' rights in relation to 
agricultural leases would begin to address tribal producers' 
concerns.
    BIA roadblocks may also be alleviated through more 
widespread use of agriculture resource management plans, and 
more technical assistance dedicated to tribal producers. ARMPs 
prioritize tribal management of agriculture resources and 
provide opportunities for tribes to benefit from their own 
resources.
    Yet only a handful of tribes have developed ARMPs. This is 
due in part to the expense and complexity inherent in planning 
for an integrated resources use, as well as capacity 
limitations in carrying out the plans. Adequate funding and 
technical assistance, resources on the front end would better 
support the labor-intensive development of ARMPs.
    Key to opportunities like ARMPs is technical assistance to 
connect tribal producers to implementation resources. The IAC 
has entered into recent multi-year technical assistance 
agreements with the USDA that have enabled us to serve as a 
bridge between producers and USDA programing. A similar 
approach at BIA may serve better to connect tribes and tribal 
producers to BIA resources.
    In sum, supporting tribal agriculture priorities can 
improve opportunities for tribal producers, advance tribal 
sovereignty, build tribal economies, and improve tribal 
community health. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Lawrence follows:]

Prepared Statement of Kari Jo Lawrence, Executive Director, Intertribal 
                          Agriculture Council
    Chairman Schatz, Vice Chair Murkowski, and Members of the 
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on behalf 
of the Intertribal Agriculture Council as it relates to agriculture 
priorities in Native communities in 2023. I am Kari Jo Lawrence, the 
Executive Director of the Intertribal Agriculture Council (IAC), which 
is headquartered in Billings, Montana. I am Hidatsa, and an enrolled 
member of the Three Affiliated Tribes located on the Fort Berthold 
Indian Reservation, where I was raised on a cattle ranch. Prior to 
joining the Intertribal Agriculture Council, I had a 20-year career 
with the United States Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources 
Conservation Service in North Dakota and South Dakota, and I now live, 
work and ranch with my family on the Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation. 
In addition to my role as Executive Director for IAC, I also serve as 
the co-Chair of the Native Farm Bill Coalition, a nationwide initiative 
that was launched in 2017 by the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community, 
the Intertribal Agriculture Council, the Indigenous Food and 
Agriculture Initiative-as research partner for the Coalition--and the 
National Congress of American Indians, to share the voices of Indian 
Country during the Farm Bill reauthorization.
    The Intertribal Agriculture Council is a national, Native-led 
nonprofit that was formed in 1987 and tasked with pursuing and 
promoting the conservation, development, and use of our agriculture 
resources for the betterment of our people. Since our founding, IAC has 
actively supported Tribal producers across the country through on-the-
ground technical assistance and services, as well as advocacy for 
improvements in the policies that govern the landscape in which Tribal 
producers must operate. In 1987, IAC's predecessor, the National Indian 
Agricultural Working Group, published a report that outlined a number 
of recommendations aimed at improving the environment for the main 
Indian industry: agriculture. The report noted that the issues it 
addressed were ``neither new, nor unknown.''
    While there have certainly been improvements around Tribal 
agriculture since 1987, the sentiment remains the same. The issues 
Tribal producers face today are neither new, nor unknown. Similar to 
1987, Tribal agriculture could still be better supported through 
``innovative approaches to land management. . . . and modifications to 
Department of Agriculture programs and procedures at the county or 
local level to enhance Indian Agricultural producer involvement in 
agriculture programs. . . .''
    With 2023 marking a Farm Bill reauthorization year, the IAC, 
through feedback we receive from producers who engage with our 
Technical Assistance Network, as well as outreach conducted by the 
Native Farm Bill Coalition, is focused on elevating agriculture 
priorities Tribes and producers have shared across Indian Country. \1\ 
Some of these priorities are unique to USDA programming, but many 
priorities are areas of concern where Tribal agriculture intersects 
with the Bureau of Indian Affairs' oversight of Tribal lands. \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ For purposes of this testimony, Indian Country means ``(a) all 
land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction 
of the United States Government, notwithstanding the issuance of any 
patent, and, including rights-of-way running through the reservation, 
(b) all dependent Indian communities within the borders of the United 
States whether within the original or subsequently acquired territory 
thereof, and whether within or without the limits of a state, and (c) 
all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been 
extinguished, including rights-of-way running through the same.'' 18 
U.S.C .  1151.
    \2\ For purposes of this testimony, ``Indian land'' and ``Tribal 
land'' are used interchangeably and mean ``any tract in which any 
interest in the surface estate is owned by a tribe or individual Indian 
in trust or restricted status and includes both individually owned 
Indian land and tribal land. `` 25 C.F.R.  162.003 (the definition for 
Indian land in the leasing provisions for the Indian Title in the Code 
of Federal Regulations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This testimony will cover two key priority areas which often 
intersect: first, USDA programming and directives authorized under the 
2023 Farm Bill; and second, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and its role 
in Tribal agriculture.
2023 Farm Bill, Generally
    In the last year, the Native Farm Bill Coalition has conducted more 
than 60 roundtables across Indian Country-both in-person and 
virtually--to ascertain the agriculture priorities Tribes and producers 
are advancing in 2023.
    Specific to the Farm Bill, there is resounding support for greater 
638 contracting authority throughout USDA programming and parity, 
generally.
    While we know Tribes have successfully implemented 638 authority 
over Bureau of Indian Affairs and Indian Health Services programs for 
decades, the USDA has been slow to recognize the same authority. In the 
2018 Farm Bill, Congress authorized two 638 pilot projects: one for the 
procurement portion of the Food Distribution Program on Indian 
Reservations, the other for the co-management of forests. These marked 
the first time Congress directed the USDA to recognize Tribes through a 
self-determination lens.
    According to USDA's report to Tribal leaders at a recent FDPIR 
consultation, USDA's Food and Nutrition Services (FNS) paid $250,000 in 
FY21 and FY22 to the BIA to handle the ``638'' contracting process for 
the FDPIR pilot. This is understandable, while USDA has no ``638'' 
contracting office, and this program is in a pilot phase. However, 
Tribal leaders have expressed that USDA needs its own staff and office 
for this work in anticipation of these ``638'' authorities being 
expanded and made permanent. This is because Tribal leaders support 
broad ``638'' expansion beyond any single agency or authority at USDA: 
food assistance programs through FNS, forestland management and 
agroforestry through Forest Service, and land stewardship through NRCS, 
just to name a few. With so many USDA agencies potentially well-suited 
for ``638'' agreements, it would not make sense for USDA to subcontract 
all of that work to an entirely different Department, especially one as 
chronically overworked as BIA.
Expanding and Making Permanent FDPIR 638 Authority
    The Coalition's 2022 Gaining Ground report shares IAC's position 
that FDPIR 638 authority is critical to not only the physical health of 
our community members but to Tribal economies that support Tribal 
producers in keeping locally-grown food in our communities:

         FDPIR 638 is an important acknowledgment of Tribal sovereignty 
        that opens the door to food purchasing decisions that allow for 
        more traditional, Tribally-grown, local, and regionally 
        produced foods. Since [the 2018 Farm Bill authorized the FDPIR 
        pilot project], seven self-determination contracts have been 
        awarded to eight Tribal Nations and Tribal organizations for 
        the FDPIR procurement project, including one intertribal 
        partnership between the Menominee Tribe and Oneida Nation of 
        Wisconsin, as well as individual contracts with the Red Cliff 
        Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, the Little Traverse Bay Bands 
        of Odawa Indians, the Lummi Nation, the Alaska Native Tribal 
        Health Consortium (ANTHC), the Chickasaw Nation, and the 
        Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians. Initial contract awards 
        for these Tribes and Tribal organizations totaled $3.5 million, 
        all of which support Tribal and locally produced foods moving 
        into the FDPIR food packages of those Tribes. Additional funds 
        appropriated by Congress since those contracts were awarded 
        have enabled USDA to extend existing contracts and consider 
        opening new applications for additional participation. Legal 
        constraints, both statutory and regulatory, [however,] prevent 
        Tribal governments and producers from taking full advantage of 
        more opportunities, like the FDPIR food sourcing program, to 
        expand food access and food economies. \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Erin Parker and Carly Griffith Hotvedt, et al., Gaining Ground: 
A Report on the 2018 Farm Bill Successes for Indian Country and 
Opportunities for 2023 46-47 (Sept. 2022).

    As a pilot project, funding for this 638 authority is capped at $5 
million, with approximately $3 million being appropriated annually thus 
far. This severely limits the number and size of the Tribes that can 
participate in this demonstration project. Even so, ``[p]articipating 
Tribes are reporting higher take rates of Tribally-procured foods among 
their FDPIR participants and higher engagement with the program. . . . 
If Congress made this procurement opportunity permanent and granted it 
mandatory funding in the Farm Bill, more Tribal Nations would be able 
to participate and take advantage of this pathway to improved Tribal 
food access.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Id. at 48.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Further, the 638 authority is limited to procurement, instead of 
authorizing Tribes to exercise greater control in the design and 
implementation of this program. ``Tribal Nations have also called for a 
full expansion of `638' authority for the entirety of the FDPIR 
program, not just the sourcing opportunity from Sec. 4003(b) of the 
2018 Farm Bill. This would facilitate full Tribal authority over this 
program for the first time, and enable Tribal Nations to offer the 
program in a way that best fits the needs of their community.'' \5\ 
Expanding and making FDPIR authority permanent would, as this Committee 
knows, not represent an increase in spending, but rather, reallocate 
existing spending for FDPIR in instances where Tribes express a desire 
to exercise such authority, and would further support Tribal self-
determination in feeding their own.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expanding 638 Authority to All USDA and Implementing 638 Office at USDA
    In 2018, prior to being appointed as General Counsel of USDA, Janie 
Simms Hipp testified before this Committee and shared the findings from 
a report authorized under the 2014 Farm Bill that reviewed the 
feasibility of Tribal administration of federal food assistance 
programs. At that time, USDA, and FNS specifically, maintained the 
position that they did ``not have the requisite `638-like authority' 
that explicitly provides Congressional support for executing contracts 
between federal agencies and Tribes to coordinate the management of 
specific federal programs.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Breaking New Ground in Agribusiness Opportunities in Indian 
Country: Oversight Hearing before the Senate Comm. on Indian Affairs 4 
(Jan. 17, 2018), (Testimony of Janie Simms Hipp), https://
www.indian.senate.gov/sites/default/files/JanieSimmsHippTestimonySCIA-
AgribusinessHearing-011718-FinalSubmitted_0.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In part, this absence of congressionally-recognized 638-like 
authority at USDA only exacerbates the pervasive lack of recognition or 
understanding of the federal trust responsibility owed to Tribes--and 
by extension, Tribal lands and producers--across USDA agencies and 
staff, generally, creating obstacles to progress for Tribal agriculture 
endeavors.
    This lack of recognition or understanding is underscored by the 
fact that for the two 638 pilot projects the 2018 Farm Bill authorized, 
the USDA contracts the negotiation function to the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs (BIA) at the Department of the Interior. The BIA tells Tribal 
leaders it is chronically underfunded and needs additional financial 
support to negotiate its current level of contracts. No one would like 
to see a fully funded and functional BIA more than Tribal leaders and 
Tribal producers in Indian Country, for whom BIA delays often cost 
business opportunities and stifle economic development. Indeed, this is 
part of the reason that several of the initial ``638'' pilot recipients 
were dismayed to learn that BIA, not USDA, would be handling the 
contract negotiation process. Should ``638'' authority expand at USDA, 
we must reiterate that the process--as well as a chunk of 
administrative funds that should be supporting Tribal communities--must 
not be diverted to BIA. If Congress wishes to increase BIA funding 
support, it surely can choose to do so directly. Future expansion of 
``638'' authority at USDA should not be used as a backdoor fund for 
BIA. There are only disadvantages, and no advantages, for USDA and for 
Tribes to allow any USDA funds to be diverted to BIA for ``638'' 
administration. And it is completely unnecessary. A relatively small 
``638'' staff group at both BIA and IHS routinely negotiates and 
transfers hundreds of millions of dollars each year to hundreds of 
Tribes and tribal organizations. USDA can, and should, do the same 
without reinventing the wheel or outsourcing the residual ``638'' 
negotiation work to BIA. It merely needs to replicate the BIA and IHS 
model for a ``638'' office at USDA, and keep that wheel attached to the 
USDA axle.
Challenges Unique for Tribal Producers in USDA Programming
    There are additional Farm Bill-specific priorities that reflect 
issues IAC regularly encounters in the services our Technical 
Assistance Network provides to Tribal producers on the ground. Programs 
at the USDA are rarely structured to meet the unique needs specific to 
Tribes and producers based on jurisdiction of land and the federal 
government's trust obligations to Tribes. As a result, Tribes and 
producers operating on Tribal lands that don't fit neatly within the 
county and state-based frameworks under which most, if not all, USDA 
programs operate, are treated inconsistently within the USDA--and often 
bear the negative consequences.
Credit
    Access to credit in Indian Country cannot begin without discussing 
the unique status of Indian land. Because Indian land is either held in 
trust or has a restricted status, Tribal producers often encounter 
obstacles to accessing credit through traditional banking institutions. 
The data to reflect this, however, is limited and/or less than 
accurate. In the 2018 Farm Bill, Congress directed a report on the 
availability of credit to Tribes and Tribal producers in agriculture. 
\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ See Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, Pub. L. 115-334, Sec. 
5415 (Dec. 20, 2018); see also Government Accountability Office, GAO-
19-464, Indian Issues:Agricultural Credit Needs and Barriers to Lending 
on Tribal Lands (May 2019) (``Congress included a provision in statute 
for GAO to review the ability of [the Farm Credit System, a government-
sponsored enterprise that includes 69 associations that lend to farmers 
and ranchers,] to meet the agricultural credit needs of Indian tribes 
and their members on tribal lands. This report describes (1) what is 
known about the agricultural credit needs of Indian tribes and their 
members, (2) barriers stakeholders identified to agricultural credit on 
tribal lands, (3) FCS authority and actions to meet those agricultural 
credit needs, and (4) stakeholder suggestions for improving Indians' 
access to agricultural credit on tribal lands.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the report published by the Government Accountability Office, it 
was noted that ``[a]ccording to tribal stakeholders, experts, and BIA 
officials we interviewed, tribal members who obtain agricultural credit 
likely receive it from USDA's Farm Service Agency, other USDA programs, 
or Native CDFIs. Some tribal members receive agricultural credit from 
local private lenders, but they are typically larger, more established 
borrowers. One expert told us that tribal members who are smaller or 
beginning agricultural producers and cannot access commercial banks 
instead may borrow money from family members.'' \8\ That is, Indian 
Country is a credit desert that affords Tribal producers few options 
for the capital necessary to maintain and build their operations. The 
report went on to note that Tribal producers operating on trust lands 
must navigate accessing credit when ``some lenders, including [the Farm 
Credit System] associations, report[] concerns about their ability to 
recover loan collateral if the borrower defaulted on a loan involving 
tribal lands.'' \9\ It is difficult enough to find lenders familiar 
with and willing to lend around the inherent risks and uncertainties 
that accompany agribusiness, but to find lenders that also have an 
understanding of the unique status of Tribal lands and are willing to 
lend within this landscape at a reasonable interest rate can be rare.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Government Accountability Office, GAO-19-464, Indian 
Issues:Agricultural Credit Needs and Barriers to Lending on Tribal 
Lands 10 (May 2019) (``GAO Report''), https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-
19-464.pdf.
    \9\ GAO Report 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The information in the 2019 GAO report represents a step in the 
right direction of understanding credit access for Tribal producers, 
however, the report itself is now outdated, or otherwise misses key 
points that underscore the need around credit for Tribal producers. In 
December 2022, Akiptan--a Native American Community Development 
Financial Institution (CDFI) that provides loans and technical 
assistance to those in Indian Agriculture--published its Native 
Agriculture Market Study Report. The 179-page Akiptan Report 
``assess[es] the current needs and barriers that exist for Native 
producers across the U.S. . . . to determine what the unmet financing 
need is for Native producers amongst other barriers that, if addressed, 
would lead to greater prosperity and sustainability for Native 
agriculture.'' \10\ Based on the 273 producers (representing 81 tribes) 
who took the Native producer survey, the ``total unmet financing need'' 
is $147,406,308.67, or an average of $539,949.85 per producer. \11\ The 
Akiptan Report further states that ``[w]hen extrapolated to all Native 
producers in the United States (79,198 producers in 2017) we would 
estimate the total unmet capital need for Native producers to be 
$42,762,948,220.'' \12\ Nearly $43 billion. This amount stands in stark 
contrast to the outdated amounts cited in the GAO Report \13\--a Report 
that interviewed representatives of 6 of the 574 federally recognized 
Tribes, with no consideration for individual Tribal producers. \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Akiptan, Native Agriculture Market Study Report 4 (Dec. 2022), 
https://www.akiptan.org/_files/ugd/
023fa2_9a012afa1cd745d29fd1cd3b0d45e8ea.pdf.
    \11\ Id. at 6.
    \12\ Id.
    \13\ See GAO Report 11, 23.
    \14\ Id. at 32-34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Accordingly, access to credit through the USDA's Farm Service 
Agency (FSA) and, more recently, through Native CDFIs, is critical to 
Tribal producers. Even so, obstacles and/or limitations remain for 
Tribal producers in accessing credit through the FSA or through Native 
CDFIs--obstacles and limitations that can be addressed through the Farm 
Bill.
    In instances where Tribal producers are attempting to access 
credit, be it through a commercial lender or their FSA county office, 
they are often forced into the role of educator on the unique status of 
Tribal lands and why the Tribal land status should not be an impediment 
to accessing credit. Greater education and accountability on the lender 
side are critical to improving credit access outcomes for Tribal 
producers.
Commodities, Conservation and Crop Insurance
    Risk is an inherent component of agriculture-whether you're a 
Tribal producer operating on Tribal lands or a non-Tribal producer 
operating on your own fee lands-and the Commodity, Conservation and 
Crop Insurance Titles of the Farm Bill are intended to serve as a 
buttress against some of these risks. But the current framework under 
which the programs supported by these Titles operate is often ill-
suited to meet the needs of Tribal producers. That is, Tribal producers 
operating on trust or restricted fee lands often encounter barriers, 
inequities, and inefficiencies in accessing USDA programs administered 
under a county or state committee.
    Extreme, long-term drought, market challenges, and region--specific 
issues underscore the need for programs that offer flexibility instead 
of a one-size-fits-all approach. Recognizing Tribal sovereignty and 
authority over Tribal lands in USDA programming would alleviate 
inconsistent access to and application of commodity, conservation, and 
crop insurance programs that Tribal producers regularly experience.
    Currently, a Tribal producer's ability to access disaster relief or 
a conservation program can be inhibited because Tribal lands are not 
considered under a reservation framework, but as a part of a county. 
Similarly, Tribal producers encounter challenges in accessing USDA's 
Natural Resources Conservation Service's (NRCS) programs, as access 
often requires negotiation or sign-off from the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs (BIA) and navigating around NRCS program terms that conflict 
with BIA leasing or land management terms. As an example, both FSA and 
NRCS administer conservation programming that assists with the 
installation of structural practices that are crucial to proper land 
management. Prior to completing these projects, FSA and NRCS require 
cultural resource surveys. If the survey for an agriculture operation 
is on fee land, the producer is eligible to have agency-compensated 
staff conduct the survey. But if the producer is operating on trust or 
restricted fee lands, the producer is responsible for hiring and paying 
for the cultural resource survey, which can cost thousands of dollars 
out of pocket, as the FSA and NRCS will not accept surveys completed by 
a Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO) in instances where the 
THPO is willing and able to do the survey. This creates a significant 
burden on Tribal producers who are operating on Tribal lands for no 
fault of their own.
    Barriers to these programs could, however, be addressed in the Farm 
Bill by recognizing the unique status of Tribal lands and authorizing 
flexibility in programs that can and should be tailored to the Tribal 
agriculture landscape.
    As an example, the Gaining Ground report makes the recommendation 
that the ``Farm Service Agency (FSA) County Committee determinations on 
normal grazing periods and drought monitor intensity should be amended 
to ensure that separate carrying capacities and normal grazing periods 
for each type of grazing land or pastureland are set at different rates 
for Tribal lands and are established by the national FSA office (not at 
the county committee level).'' \15\ Moreover, the Gaining Ground report 
makes the case that ``rates should be established after Tribal 
consultation and must be established after discussions with the Bureau 
of Indian Affairs as well.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ Parker and Hotvedt, supra note 1 at 22.
    \16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Until the programs in these Titles are tailored to address Tribal 
lands as distinct from non-Tribal lands, the health of the Tribal land 
and Tribal agriculture operations will suffer. At a minimum, Tribes 
should have the authority to identify Priority Resource Concerns and 
have parity with states in these Titles. Ideally, however, Tribes would 
have the authority and the necessary set-asides to administer programs 
based on a Tribal lands framework, independent of county and state 
committee determinations.
Intersection of Tribal Agriculture and the Bureau of Indian Affairs
    While the 2023 Farm Bill reauthorization compels Farm Bill-related 
priorities, most conversations with Tribal producers veer toward issues 
with BIA oversight of Tribal lands. Without cooperation and 
accountability at the BIA--in every office across Indian Country--
Tribal priorities gained in the Farm Bill will likely fall short of 
providing comprehensive improvements to the Tribal agriculture 
landscape. This is true as it concerns the BIA's interactions with 
individual Tribal producers, as well as the BIA's interactions with 
Tribes related to agriculture issues.
    At IAC, our priorities related to the intersection of agriculture 
and the BIA are informed by Tribal producers who work with our 
Technical Assistance Network to address outstanding BIA issues. Some of 
the issues involve cross-agency cooperation, or lack thereof, while 
other issues are solely within the scope of the BIA.
    Agriculture Leases, Lease Enforcement, and Land Management, 
Generally Many Tribal producers, especially in the West, have expressed 
frustration around the BIA's land management and lease enforcement 
practices, citing BIA delays and lack of transparency at the root of 
many of these frustrations.
    The BIA could begin to address these frustrations by communicating 
clear processes and timelines around agriculture leases, and 
enforcement of lease terms, as well as provide clarity around Tribal 
producers' rights in relation to agriculture leases.
Agriculture Resource Management Plans
    Another priority aimed at improving the agriculture landscape for 
Tribes and producers is more comprehensive support for Tribal 
Agriculture Resource Management Plans. When Congress passed the 
American Indian Agriculture Resource Management Act in 1993 (AIRMA), 
Tribes were encouraged to develop comprehensive Agriculture Resource 
Management Plans (ARMPs) to plan for the use and management of 
agricultural resources to ``produce increased economic returns, enhance 
Indian self-determination, promote employment opportunities, and 
improve the social and economic well-being of Indian and surrounding 
communities'' (25 USC Ch. 39) and yet only a handful have developed 
ARMPs. This is partially due to the expense and complexity inherent in 
planning for integrated resource use as well as limitations in internal 
capacity for carrying out plans.
    With adequate funding and technical assistance resources on the 
front end, more Tribes would be able to undertake the labor-intensive 
development of ARMPs. The development and implementation of these plans 
are key to supporting Tribal agriculture priorities, improved land 
management practices that will benefit the health and productivity of 
the land, and local economies that value Tribally-produced food staying 
in Tribal communities. Until the use of ARMPs becomes widespread among 
Tribes, we expect Tribes and producers will continue to battle 
extractive agriculture that values the exportation of Tribal resources 
with few benefits reaching the Tribal communities from which they come.
Technical Assistance
    In recent years, the IAC has entered into multi-year technical 
assistance agreements with the USDA. Through multi-year agreements, our 
TA Network is able to walk alongside producers from the beginning of a 
project through completion. Under these multi-year cooperative 
agreements, the IAC, through our Technical Assistance Network, works to 
``ensure improved understanding of and equitable participation in the 
full range of USDA programs and services among underserved farmers, 
ranchers, forest landowners and operators through supporting the 
organizational delivery of technical assistance projects and 
networks.'' We do this by providing technical assistance, program 
development, curriculum development, deployment and evaluation of 
impact through (1) an introduction to USDA programs; (2) financial 
literacy training; (3) market planning; and 3) technical support.
    It is through these multi-year agreements that a federal agency 
like the USDA can fulfill some of its obligations to Tribal 
communities--by working with Native-led organizations like the IAC to 
reach out to Tribal producers in a meaningful way in an effort to 
ensure they are aware of and taking advantage of programming that suits 
their agriculture operations. Likewise, multi-year planning allows 
projects to advance from aspirational to coming to fruition. With 
inconsistent access to BIA staff across Indian Country, multi-year 
cooperative agreements may be a path the Department of Interior should 
consider in advancing Tribal agriculture priorities on the ground.
Conclusion
    In sum, there is no shortage of priorities in Tribal agriculture, 
all of which could improve not only the livelihood of individual Tribal 
producers, but support Tribal sovereignty, build Tribal economies, and 
improve the health of Tribal members.

    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Frias, please proceed.

 STATEMENT OF RICO FRIAS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIVE AMERICAN 
                 FINANCIAL OFFICERS ASSOCIATION

    Mr. Frias. [Greeting in Native tongue.] Good afternoon, 
Chairman Schatz, Vice Chair Murkowski, members of the Senate 
Committee on Indian Affairs. My name is Rico Frias. I am the 
Executive Director of NAFOA, Native American Financial Officers 
Association, and a citizen of the Chihene Nde Nation.
    I want to thank you for your time today and the opportunity 
to speak to you about priorities for the 118th Congress and 
beyond. I believe this hearing is especially important now, in 
the wake of COVID-19 as Indian Country prepares for new 
opportunities and challenges that we know will come.
    NAFOA is a national intertribal organization for the 155-
member tribes in 26 States. Our mission is to strengthen tribal 
financing and grow tribal economies by advocating for 
bipartisan policy solutions. Our priorities are to ensure 
parity for tribes with States and to unlock the economic 
potential of Indian Country.
    Meaningful tribal tax reform will put tribes on equal 
footing with States. Unlocking the potential for energy 
development in Indian Country will promote economic 
diversification. Eliminating dual taxation will better enable 
tribes to provide for their tribal citizens.
    For many years, Indian tribes have called for tax reform to 
address inequities in the current regulations. Members of both 
parties, including Vice Chair Murkowski, Senator Cortez Masto, 
Representative Ron Kind, and the late Representative Don Young 
all introduced legislation in the last Congress to address 
Indian Country's longstanding priorities with regard to tax 
reform.
    I would like to thank the members for their work and 
leadership on this legislation. And I include Representative 
Gwen Moore, who has agreed to take responsibility for this 
important legislation in the House, now that Representative 
Kind has retired.
    Taken together, the Tribal Tax and Investment Reform Act 
first introduced by Congressman Kind in 2013 in the 113th 
Congress and the Native American Tax Reform and Relief Act 
introduced by Senator Cortez Masto in the 117th, with support 
from Chairman Schatz and Chairman Wyden, outlined Indian 
Country's tax priorities. While varying slightly, the 
legislation included important provisions that will put tribes 
on equal footing with State and local governments.
    Our request for tribal tax reform can be summarized as 
follows: remove the essential governmental function in the 
issuance of tax-exempt bonds to allow tribes to issue tax-
exempt bonds on equal footing with State and local governments. 
Ensure that contributions to charities created by tribal 
governments are treated the same as contributions to charities 
created by State and local governments.
    Improve the effectiveness of tribal child support 
enforcement agencies by creating parity of access. Expand the 
Special Needs Adoption Credit so it includes adoptions ratified 
by tribal courts. Create an annual $175 million new markets tax 
credit for low-income tribal communities and for projects that 
serve or employ tribal members.
    Create parity with State governments by removing the 
essential governmental function test for the Employee 
Retirement Income Security Act, and codify that possessory 
interest, permanent improvements, without regard to ownership, 
and activities under leases or rights-of-way on Indian trust 
lands are not subject to State taxation.
    To promote greater access to capital, we can make changes 
to allow the new market tax credits to be used in conjunction 
with the Bureau of Indian Affairs' Indian Loan Guarantee 
Program. Currently, tribes cannot take advantage of the new 
market tax credits if utilizing the Indian Loan Guarantee 
Program. Correcting this would cost Congress nothing, but would 
dramatically increase the ability of smaller tribes to access 
capital.
    The COVID-19 pandemic made it abundantly clear that tribal 
economies must be diversified in order to be strong. Congress 
can help unlock the energy potential of Indian Country and help 
tribes diversify their economies and create jobs. Whether 
renewable or traditional, energy is an important part of tribal 
economic diversification.
    Currently, there is confusion on whether loans with the LPO 
may be accessed by tribes that receive other Federal funding, 
such as grants. There is a disconnect between the intent of 
Congress and the way this program is being implemented. 
Codifying the intent of Congress and making it clear that 
tribes should be able to access this program would unlock the 
$20 billion that Congress has allocated for this program.
    Congress has an obligation to protect tribal sovereignty 
and promote tribal self-determination. We urge this Congress to 
take up the above priorities, to promote the general welfare of 
tribes and their citizens by encouraging the economic growth 
and prosperity of Indian Country.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Frias follows:]

 Prepared Statement of Rico Frias, Executive Director, Native American 
                     Financial Officers Association
    Good afternoon Chairman Shatz, Vice Chair Murkwoski, and Members of 
the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. I would like to thank you for 
your time today, as well as the opportunity to talk with all of you 
about priorities for 2023, the 118th Congress, and beyond. I believe 
this hearing is especially important now, in the wake of COVID-19, as 
Indian Country prepares for the new challenges and opportunities that 
we know will come. NAFOA is a national intertribal organization with 
one hundred fifty-five (155) Member Tribes in twenty-six (26) states. 
Our mission is to strengthen tribal finance and grow tribal economies 
by advocating for bipartisan policy solutions. Our priorities are to 
ensure parity for tribes with states and to unlock the economic 
potential of Indian country. We support meaningful tribal tax reform to 
ensure tribes are treated the same as states elimination of the 
essential governmental function test, parity for tribal courts in 
regards to access to adoption tax credits and child support 
enforcement, and the elimination of dual taxation on tribal lands which 
stifles economic development. In order to grow unlock the full economic 
potential of Indian country we ask rights of way, leases, and permits 
must be approved as swiftly on Indian lands as they are outside of 
Indian lands.
    I started with NAFOA in July of 2021. Over the last two years NAFOA 
has worked to keep tribal governments informed about the funding 
opportunities provided under the CARES Act, ARPA, and other statutes 
like the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). We have hosted numerous 
webinars and events with Administration officials from the Departments 
of the Treasury, Commerce, Interior, and Energy, while also working to 
educate those officials, many of whom had not worked on tribal issues 
before. Each tribe is unique with its own array of issues and 
priorities, and there is no ``one size fits all'' solution for Indian 
Country to any problem Indian tribes face. However, there are changes 
that can be made to increase the ability of tribes to provide for their 
tribal citizens. History has shown that when the economic potential of 
Indian tribes is unlocked, the surrounding communities benefit as well.
The Trust Responsibility
    A trust responsibility exists between the United States federal 
government and Indian tribes. Beginning with the 1778 Treaty with the 
Delaware, the United States entered into numerous treaties with Indian 
tribes and these treaties gave rise to the trust responsibility. The 
Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution has been interpreted 
to give the Congress broad authority in regard to Indian tribes. Under 
the trust responsibility the federal government has an obligation to 
uphold tribal sovereignty and the right to self-governance. Consistent 
with this obligation we urge the Congress to pass legislation to fix 
current tax regulations and meet the needs of tribes as they exist 
today. Tribes face structural obstacles arising from our unique 
history. One is that our lands are held in trust by the federal 
government and cannot be used as collateral when tribes are seeking 
financing. In addition, tribes are unable to create revenue through the 
imposition of property taxes as states do. These unique challenges 
impact tribal governments as they work to meet the needs of their 
tribal citizens.
Tax Reform
    For many years Indian tribes have called for tax reform to address 
inequities in the current regulations. Members of both parties, 
including Vice Chair Murkowski, Senator Cortez Masto, Representative 
Ron Kind, and the late Representative Don Young all introduced 
legislation in the last Congress that addressed some or all of Indian 
country's long-standing priorities with regard to tax reform. I would 
like to thank the Members for their work and leadership on this 
legislation and include Representative Gwen Moore who has agree to take 
responsibility for this important legislation now that Representative 
Kind has retired.
    Taken together, the Tribal Tax and Investment Reform Act, first 
introduced by Congressman Ron Kind in 2013 in the 113th Congress and 
reintroduced in every Congress since, and the Native American Tax Party 
and Relief introduced by Senator Cortez Masto in the 117th, outline 
Indian country's tax priorities. While varying slightly, the 
legislation includes important provisions that will put tribes on equal 
footing with state governments.
    Our requests for tribal tax reform can be summarized as follows: 
remove the essential governmental function test in the issuance of tax 
exempt development bonds to allow tribes to issue tax-exempt 
development bonds on equal footing with states by eliminating the 
essential government function test; ensure that contributions to 
charities created by tribal governments are treated the same as 
contributions to charities created by state and local governments; 
improve the effectiveness of tribal child support enforcement agencies 
by creating parity of access to the federal parent locator service and 
federal tax refund offsets; expand the special needs adoptions credit 
so it includes adoptions ratified by tribal courts; create an annual 
$175 million New Markets Tax Credit for low income tribal communities 
and for projects that serve or employ tribal members; create parity 
with state governments by removing the essential governmental function 
test from the Employee Retirement Income Security Act; codify that 
possessory interests, permanent improvements (without regard to 
ownership), and activities under leases or rights-of-way on Indian 
trust land are not subject to state taxation this is a critical change 
that has had bipartisan support in the past.
    A change that would provide tribes with greater to access capital 
and is consistent with the above suggestions would be to ensure the New 
Market Tax Credits can be used in conjunction with the BIA's Indian 
Loan Guarantee Program. In our work with tribal leaders, banks, and 
financial advisors, NAFOA hears first-hand the various issues and 
challenges they run into when trying to help tribes access capital for 
business or economic projects. Currently, tribes cannot take advantage 
of the NMTC if going through the Indian Loan Guarantee Program. This 
oversight would cost Congress nothing to correct but would dramatically 
increase the ability of smaller tribes to make deals.
Economic Development
    The COVID-19 pandemic made it abundantly clear that tribal 
economies must be diversified in order to be strong. Congress can help 
unlock the energy potential of Indian country and help tribes diversify 
their economies and create jobs. Whether renewable or traditional, 
energy is an important part of tribal economic diversification. As the 
Biden administration emphasizes the shift to net zero by 2030, tribes 
are important partners in that shift. Over the past two years, NAFOA 
has partnered with the Department of Energy and other stakeholders to 
make sure tribes have the information they need to make decisions 
regarding energy development and about the various federal funding 
options that are available. We have seen the strong interest in energy 
development from Indian Country. I hear it when I speak to tribal 
leaders at the NAFOA conferences and as I attend other events across 
Indian country. The webinars NAFOA has hosted on energy development 
have been some of the best attended over the past two years.
    Last year NAFOA testified before the House Energy & Commerce 
Committee on the Indian Loan Guarantee Program, which is part of the 
Department of Energy. The LPO program, which now is authorized to loan 
up to $20 billion, is an example of the kind of initiative that solves 
two problems at once, increasing credit for tribal governments and 
unlock the energy potential of Indian Country. The 53 million acres of 
Indian lands are host to 20 percent of Americas conventional energy 
resources and hold the potential for vast renewable energy resources, 
all of which are ready to deploy. However, there are still many 
barriers facing tribal energy project development. The Inflation 
Reduction Act from last year included important changes that I am 
hopeful will have a strong impact, though that impact will depend on 
how the direct pay program and tax credits are implemented when the 
rules are finalized.
    As mentioned above, tribal lands are generally held in trust by the 
federal government. This unique status creates unique barriers. It also 
creates barriers that non-tribal energy developers do not encounter. I 
have repeatedly heard that delays in approvals by the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs of rights-of-ways, permits, and leases increases costs of 
tribal projects, delays projects unnecessarily, and sometimes, directs 
projects onto neighboring non-tribal fee lands. Beyond energy, these 
delays impact broadband and other infrastructure projects. Congress can 
improve the efficiency of these processes by putting authority back 
into the hands of tribal governments where they wish to exercise it. 
Archaic and stifling rules regarding tribal land use can tie-up the 
process in red tape and discourage investments. In some cases, BIA 
requests could take up to two years, which can be the end to of any 
economic, development project. According to the GAO, the permitting 
review process under the BIA can take two times as long as the Bureau 
of Land Management.
    Last April, NAFOA joined other intertribal organizations on a 
Tribal Partner Organizations letter supporting the necessary fix 
required of the Carcieri decision. To quote from that letter ``It must 
be acknowledged and understood that at its core, the Carcieri decision 
is an attack on the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) of 1934, which 
Congress enacted to stop the massive loss of Tribal homelands inflicted 
by the General Allotment Act of 1887 (Allotment Act).'' Twice the House 
passed strongly bipartisan legislation that would address and fix the 
inequities arising from the Carcieri decisions during the 117th. This 
past week, Senator Tester and Representative Cole again introduced 
legislation addressing the Carcieri decision. I thank them both for 
their leadership on this topic, and I hope that this is the Congress we 
are able to fix this misguided decision and restore the ability of all 
tribes to take land into trust.
Conclusion
    Congress has an obligation to protect tribal sovereignty and to 
promote tribal self-determination. NAFOA urges this Congress to take up 
the above priorities to promote the general welfare of tribes and their 
citizens by encouraging the economic growth and prosperity of Indian 
country. Tribal governments have been pushing for tax reform for 
decades and should not have to wait even longer for these crucial 
changes. I thank you all again for your time and look forward to 
answering any questions you might have.

    The Chairman. Thank you very much for your testimony.
    Ms. Zientek, please proceed.

    STATEMENT OF TESIA ZIENTEK, CITIZEN POTAWATOMI NATION, 
                 PRESIDENT, BOARD OF DIRECTORS

    Ms. Zientek. Boozhoo, [phrase in Native tongue.] On behalf 
of the National Indian Education Association, miigwech for this 
opportunity to provide testimony to the U.S. Senate Committee 
on Indian Affairs Oversight Hearing on Native Communities.
    In communities across the U.S., many Native students do not 
have access to high-quality, culture-based education options. 
Safe and health classrooms that center language and culture are 
essential to equity in education.
    Rooted in treaties, the U.S. Constitution, Federal law and 
U.S. Supreme Court decisions, the Federal Government has a 
direct responsibility to tribal nations and their citizens. The 
trust responsibility is an acknowledgement that the debt paid 
for by our ancestors through the loss of life and lands is to 
be paid for in part with education.
    The Federal debt to Indian education grew exponentially 
during the boarding school era, due to the increased loss of 
our children's lives and the misuse of Indian trust monies to 
pay it. The Federal trust responsibility includes the 
obligation to provide parity in access and equal resources to 
all Native students, regardless of where they receive an 
education, from the cradle to college and career.
    Native-serving early childhood education and Head Start 
programs are some of the most successful Federal programs that 
focus directly on Native children. These programs work to 
address health and education disparities in a holistic, 
community-based manner, similar to our traditional methods of 
nurturing.
    It is essential that Native communities have the ability to 
include as much culturally grounded curriculum and alternative 
assessments for Head Start as well as programs that bridge home 
to school learning pathways and increase family engagement.
    We at NIEA are seeking to reclaim the brilliance of our 
Native students by ensuring community, family, and mental 
health are part of the academic wheel. Programs that support 
social and emotional learning have been effective strategies in 
closing the achievement gap for Native youth.
    If the Federal Government is committed to education, it 
must actively work to center healing in school communities. One 
of the largest wounds that exists in Native communities across 
the Country is the lasting effects of Federal Indian Boarding 
School policies. Students today still experience 
intergenerational trauma from what our relatives and ancestors 
experienced.
    This Congress should actively work to support a substantial 
increase of social and emotional programs for Native youth to 
address these traumas and also update and pass the Truth in 
Healing Commission on Indian Boarding School Policy Act, which 
would ensure students both past and present have their stories 
heard and their traumas addressed.
    Native students succeed the most when their communities are 
thriving. Keeping families and communities together is 
essential to the well-being of our Native children and youth.
    The Indian Child Welfare Act was enacted to address the 
alarming number of Indian children being removed from their 
homes. However, ICWA is currently facing many serious 
challenges, including the recent Supreme Court case, Brackeen 
v. Haaland. It is essential that Congress work together to 
strengthen ICWA.
    There is a direct link between cultural identity and the 
cognitive success of students. Due to over a century of 
assimilative policy, followed by unprecedented loss of Native 
elders during the COVID-19 pandemic, many of our languages face 
extinction today.
    NIEA is proud that Congress and the Administration are 
currently working to increase the supports for Native language 
programs with the passing of Durbin Feeling and the Resource 
Centers Act, alongside the new Federal plan on Native language 
revitalization. This should only be the start of a full 
government commitment to Native languages.
    Our Native languages feed our spirits, but our children's 
bodies must also be fed. Native students and families are twice 
as likely to experience food insecurity due to high rates of 
poverty and the rural nature of our communities. Though some 
schools that serve Native students have implemented programs to 
offer traditional foods, there is not currently a Federal 
program that allows tribal nations to operate their own school 
lunch programs.
    NIEA strongly recommends passage of the Tribal Nutrition 
Improvement Act, which would not only authorize this, but would 
make Native students categorically eligible for free school 
lunches.
    Ninety-three percent of Native students attend public 
schools but still face unique educational needs. The Johnson 
O'Malley program provides these critical educational resources 
for after school programs, academic support, and Native 
cultural enrichments. While JOM is currently supported by many 
tribes, Congress should uphold tribal sovereignty by 
authorizing tribal nations to use P.L. 638 contracting to 
operate JOM programs themselves.
    Public schools supporting Native students are also 
supported by Impact Aid, ensuring all schools have the 
financial resources they need, regardless of the tax base they 
have access to. Even though tribal nations do not levy taxes, 
tribally controlled schools are not eligible for Impact Aid. 
Furthermore, even though Natives from the lower 48 and Alaska 
are eligible, Native Hawaiians are not. It should be the job of 
this Committee to rectify that situation.
    Prosperous Native communities can only come from strong, 
intentional support of Native youth by fully upholding the 
United States treaty and trust obligations to Native education.
    Miigwech for this opportunity to testify. We look forward 
to working with each of you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Zientek follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Tesia Zientek, Citizen Potawatomi Nation, 
                     President, Board of Directors
    On behalf of the National Indian Education Association (NIEA), the 
oldest and most inclusive Native education organization, thank you for 
this opportunity to provide testimony for the US Senate Committee on 
Indian Affairs Oversight Hearing on Native Communities. In communities 
across the US, many Native students do not have access to high-quality 
culture-based education options that would provide them opportunities 
to thrive. Safe and healthy classrooms that center language and culture 
are essential to equity in education. From early childhood through 
postsecondary education, Native students must have access to programs 
and resources that provide the best chance at success.
    NIEA was founded to advance comprehensive, culture-based 
educational opportunities for American Indians, Alaska Natives, and 
Native Hawaiians, representing Native students, educators, families, 
communities, and Tribal Nations. NIEA advocates for educational 
excellence by working to ensure that students receive equal access to 
high-quality academic and cultural education.
    Rooted in treaties between Tribal Nations and the federal 
government, the U.S. Constitution, federal law, and U.S. Supreme Court 
decisions, the federal government has a direct fiduciary responsibility 
to Tribal Nations and their citizens. The trust and treaty 
responsibility are an acknowledgement that the debt paid for by our 
ancestors through the loss of life and land, is to be paid for, in 
part, with education.
The Federal Trust Responsibility
    In December 2018, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights released a 
report titled, Broken Promises: Continuing Federal Funding Shortfall 
for Native Americans. This report noted that many federal programs 
designed to support Native communities and uphold the federal trust 
responsibility are chronically underfunded. \1\ Full funding for Native 
education is pivotal to Native governance and community development 
leading to empowered Native youth thriving in the classroom and beyond.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Broken Promises Report, Letter of Transmittal to the President, 
https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/2018/12-20-Broken-Promises.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Originally conceived to acculturate and assimilate Natives, Indian 
education continues to be a pillar of federal policy. Modern Indian 
education programming instead uplifts tribal sovereignty, by including 
Native history, culture, and language in curricula for tribally 
controlled schools (TCSs), Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) operated 
schools, and public schools. It is uniquely important that federal 
support for Native education continue to strengthen self-governance and 
Tribal Nations' ability to address their communities' unique need given 
the century long federal Indian boarding school policy era. The federal 
debt to Indian education grew exponentially during this period, due to 
the increased loss of our children's lives and the misuse of Indian 
trust monies to pay for boarding school operations. \2\ The initial 
Federal Indian Boarding School Initiative's investigation has already 
found over 500 deaths which took place at these schools and expects the 
numbers to rise as the investigation continues. \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 2022, 
Federal Indian Boarding School Initiative Investigative Report, 44. 
https://www.bia.gov/sites/default/files/dup/inline-files/
bsi_investigative_report_may_2022_508.pdf.
    \3\ Ibid., 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Department of the Interior, succeeding the Department of War, 
has served as the center for educating Natives in the US for almost two 
centuries. Today however, 93 percent of Native students do not attend 
BIE-funded schools. \4\ The federal trust responsibility to includes 
the obligation to provide parity in access and equal resources to all 
Native students, regardless of where they attend school, encompassing 
the Office of Indian Education (OIE) at the Department of Education 
(ED), Administration for Native Americans (ANA) and Substance Abuse and 
Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) at the Department of 
Health and Human Services, the National Telecommunications and 
Information Administration (NTIA), and the Department of Agriculture 
(USDA) alongside the Bureau of Indian Education at the Department of 
the Interior, Congress, and the rest of the federal government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), 2021, Table 
203.50, https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d21/tables/
dt21_203.50.asp?current=yes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Early Childhood Education
    Native-serving Early Childhood Education (ECE) and Head Start 
programs are some of the most successful federal programs that focus 
directly on the unique circumstances faced by Native children. These 
programs work to address health and education disparities as well as 
family and community needs. By supporting children from the cradle, 
these programs are similar to our traditional educational practices by 
including our youngest relatives as a central focus for community-based 
work. A strong ECE foundation with community support and resources sets 
families on a trajectory that promotes foundational knowledge and 
increases the capacity to be engaged throughout their child's 
educational experience. It is essential that Native communities have 
the ability to include as much culturally-grounded and community 
oriented curriculum and alternative assessments for Head Start. This 
includes creating and integrating culture and language standards and 
assessments that align with tribal knowledge and understandings. NIEA 
calls for increased access to birth to Pre-K programs that bridge home-
to-school learning pathways, and promote family engagement in literacy, 
nutrition and growth. In addition, these programs should nurture 
culture and language learning, and promote school entry and social 
skills development.
Social Emotional Learning
    NIEA promotes a framework for Native education that seeks to 
reclaim the brilliance of our Native students by ensuring community, 
family, and mental health are part of the academic wheel. This approach 
aims to close the gaps that fail to address the mental, spiritual, 
physical, and emotional needs of our Native students.
    Programs that support Social and Emotional Learning (SEL), 
including Native languages and cultural programing, have been effective 
strategies in closing the achievement gap for Native youth and have 
been rehabilitative. SEL strategies have been proven effective in 
mitigating the effects of complex trauma and improving academic 
achievement. More resources must be given in remote areas, as well as 
hands-on implementation at the school and community levels. This 
includes mental health specialists. If the federal government is 
committed to high-quality education, it must actively work to alleviate 
trauma, embrace greater equity, and create healing in school 
communities.
    One of the largest wounds that exists in Native communities across 
the country is the lasting effects of federal Indian Boarding School 
policies. Students today still experience intergenerational trauma from 
the harms many of their relatives and ancestors experienced. The Truth 
and Healing Commission on Indian Boarding School Policy Act would 
establish a comprehensive examination of the Indian boarding school 
legacy and would ensure Native students, both past and present, have 
their stories heard and their traumas addressed. We urge Congress to 
pass this legislation and thoroughly own up to the negative effects of 
the boarding school era in Indian Country, including those effects that 
directly impact our students in the classroom today. This must also 
include culturally appropriate support services for all Native 
students.
Indian Child Welfare
    Native students succeed the most when their communities are 
thriving. Keeping families and communities together is essential to the 
mental and cultural wellbeing of our Native children and youth. The 
Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) was enacted in 1978 to address the 
alarmingly high number of Indian children being removed from their 
homes by both public and private agencies. \5\ Before ICWA (1978), 
approximately 80 percent of Native families living on reservations lost 
at least one child to the foster care system, according to data 
compiled by the National Indian Child Welfare Association. \6\ However, 
ICWA is currently facing many serious challenges, including the recent 
Supreme Court Case Brackeen v. Haaland. Tribal Nations and Congress 
must work together to ensure that colleagues across the federal 
government are educated on the benefits of ICWA, its relationship to 
good child welfare practices, and opportunities to strengthen ICWA 
implementation and protect the law at the federal, state, and local 
levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ National Indian Child Welfare Association, The Indian Child 
Welfare Act: A Family's Guide, 1. https://www.nicwa.org/wp-content/
uploads/2020/10/Family-Guide-to-ICWA-2018.pdf
    \16\ National Indian Child Welfare Association, Disproportionality 
in Child Welfare Fact Sheet, 2021. https://www.nicwa.org/wp-content/
uploads/2021/12/NICWA_11_2021-Disproportionality-Fact-Sheet.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Native Languages
    There is a direct link between cultural identity and the cognitive 
success of students. For Natives across the country, linguistic and 
cultural identity are intrinsically linked. Due to over a century of 
assimilative policy, followed by unprecedented loss of Native elders 
during the COVID-19 pandemic, cultural heritage, ceremonies, religions, 
and languages face extinction today. It is critical to our communities 
that fight, harder than ever, to protect our Native languages. NIEA is 
proud that Congress and the administration are currently working to 
increase the supports for Native language programs, with the passing 
for the Durbin Feeling Native Languages Act and the Native American 
Language Resource Centers Act and the announcement of a 10-year 
National Plan on Native Language Revitalization. This should only be 
the start of a full federal government commitment to Native language 
revitalization. Native culture and languages are within the foundation 
of the United States, alongside the land we have known for generations.
    As we work together to protect our unique heritage, there must be 
supports for Teachers, principals, school leaders, and staff that serve 
Native youth to meet and advance the unique cultural, linguistic, and 
educational needs of our students. Further, our Native language 
programs are in need of larger, sweeping financial support to sustain 
their work. Many of the grants which fund language work are housed 
across various agencies, the Bureau of Indian Education, the Department 
of Education, the Office of Indian Economic Development, and the 
Administration for Native Americans. Congress should work with the 
interagency Native Languages Workgroup to maximize the federal 
government's efforts in promoting Native Languages.
Child Nutrition
    Native students and families are nearly twice as likely to 
experience food insecurity than white communities due to high rates of 
poverty and the rural/remote nature of Native communities, increasing 
the likelihood of food deserts and significantly higher food costs. 
This means Native students participate in school nutrition programs and 
services at rates disproportionately higher than those of their peers. 
Though some schools which serve Native students have implemented 
programs to offer traditional foods within a wider culture-based 
education approach, there is not currently federal program which allows 
Tribal Nations and tribally-controlled schools to operate their own 
school lunch programs or other school meal programs. NIEA strongly 
recommends passage of the Tribal Nutrition Improvement Act which would 
not only provide a pilot program for tribally controlled school meals, 
but would make Native students at BIE-funded schools categorically 
eligible for free school lunches.
Bureau of Indian Education
    School lunch is not the only major inequity for BIE-funded schools. 
There are only two educational systems for which the federal government 
is directly responsible: Department of Defense (DOD) schools and 
federally operated and federally funded tribal schools. BIE schools, 
however, lag far behind DOD schools in funding, school construction, 
and student achievement. While DOD schools are being renovated and 
remodeled, schools within the BIE system are woefully outdated and, in 
some cases, dangerous for students and staff. As one of the most 
vulnerable populations, Native students should have equal access to 
resources and opportunities. Congress should fulfill its responsibility 
to Native students by remedying the disparities between these two 
federally operated school systems.
    The Department of Interior has estimated that more than $639 
million would be needed to fix only the most pressing deferred 
maintenance issues for BIE schools. Beyond this it will take over an 
estimated $1 billion to cover all the associated costs to bring BIE 
schools up to a quality which would be considered adequate for the 
federal education trust responsibility. Better school buildings lead to 
improved conditions for learning, academic outcomes, and student 
achievement. These accounts must also authorize construction for 
educator housing. The rural nature of tribal communities makes it 
difficult to attract high-quality educators, something which can easily 
be rectified by offering housing. Education construction for tribally 
controlled schools provides long-term investments for better education 
objectives.
    The other 93 percent of Native students attend public schools, but 
are still in face unique educational needs. \7\ The Johnson O'Malley 
(JOM) program provides these critical educational resources for after 
school programs, academic support, dropout prevention, funding for 
college access testing, the purchase of school supplies, and Native 
cultural and language enrichment. JOM is supported by its parent 
committees which determine the needs of Native students in their 
communities. However, while currently supported by many tribes, the 
federal government needs to follow the thread of local tribal control 
and allow Tribal Nations to use P.L. 638 contracting to operate JOM 
programs themselves. In this vein, they should also be able to 
determine their own eligibility for their programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), 2021, Table 
203.50, https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d21/tables/
dt21_203.50.asp?current=yes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact Aid
    The Department of Education (ED) operates a number of essential 
programs for educational success for Native students. Some are the same 
as programs non-Native students participate in, such as Impact Aid, a 
key program with a goal of ensuring all schools have the financial 
resources they need, regardless of the tax base they have access to. 
Though Native students, as Federally Impacted Indian Children, 
represent as disproportionate number of those eligible for Impact Aid, 
the current law still leaves many Native children behind. NIEA 
advocates for expanding the Impact Aid Program to include Tribally 
Controlled Schools. These schools are in a unique situation as they are 
run by Tribal Nations, who do not have the same access to a traditional 
tax base due to complications in the federal tax code. Therefore, they 
too should be eligible to receive Impact Aid. Further, though American 
Indians and Alaska Natives (AI/ANs) are eligible as federally Impacted 
Indian children, Native Hawaiians are not. Even when these are students 
living on federal trust lands, known as Hawaiian Homesteads, the same 
as other AI/ANs in the lower 48 states and Alaska. We urge Congress to 
rectify these inequities.
Conclusion
    Prosperous Native communities can only come from strong, 
intentional support of Native youth by fully upholding the United 
States treaty and trust obligations to Native education. It is the 
responsibility of this committee and the entire federal government to 
federal policies that truly support tribal education sovereignty and 
provide direct, full funding of all education programs serving Native 
students so that Tribal Nations and citizens can forge a brighter 
future.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify before this committee's 
Oversight Hearing on Native Communities. We look forward to working 
with each of you on a regular basis to ensure that our children have 
access to the high-quality, culturally-grounded education our ancestors 
paid for in perpetuity.

    The Chairman. Thank you very much to all of the testifiers. 
I will now turn to the Vice Chair, Senator Murkowski.
    Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I join you in 
thanks and appreciation.
    I think this was a good overview of these areas that are so 
important, everything from education to economy to what is 
happening with agriculture. Clearly, implementation of 
infrastructure, housing, these priorities have been well 
articulated. I appreciate what you have shared with the 
Committee.
    Ms. Borromeo, I want to drill down on some of the 
specifics, because you were very succinct in providing us four 
suggestions. What I particularly like is I think they are 
imminently achievable.
    Certainly things like being able to submit compliance 
reports by utilizing mail rather than online, which we know in 
far too many of our Alaska Native communities, and in so many 
parts of Indian Country, broadband is still not where we want 
it to be despite our good infrastructure bill. Then reporting 
annually rather than quarterly, when we acknowledge just what 
it takes to meet these compliance requirements. So I thank you 
for that.
    You noted the priority for making consortium applications 
eligible. I think you have hit on something that is really key 
to us in recognizing that AFN and other tribal consortia make 
use of economies of scale to ensure that some of the smallest 
villages which oftentimes have absolutely the highest need can 
benefit.
    But they simply lack that capacity, the resources. You 
shared how you think, for instance, in reporting annually 
rather than quarterly, that that is a demonstrated benefit.
    Can you expand a little bit more for the Committee on why 
the Federal Government really needs to focus on recognizing 
this power of tribal designation in the administration of some 
of these infrastructure programs?
    Ms. Borromeo. Quyanaa for the question, Vice Chairman 
Murkowski. The basic tenet and central to Federal Indian is 
recognizing the inherent tribal self-governance and Native 
self-determination powers of our tribes.
    When they make a designation as to who or how they would 
like to receive a particular Federal benefit, the Federal 
Government should, absent some very serious concerns, for lack 
of a better word, allow that tribe to receive that benefit in 
the manner that it sees fit.
    A consortium application is a smart way of making sure that 
all of the resources that this Committee has worked so hard to 
achieve and see in our communities will actually get there. As 
long as the organization, whether it be AFN or any throughout 
Indian Country or in the islands, is administering the grant 
program correctly, the tribe should be able to utilize that as 
an opportunity to receive the benefit.
    Having implemented these programs now for two and a half 
years, I can assure you that the audit requirements are 
stringent, that the Federal program officers are on the ball 
and doing their job. We have regular check-ins with ours.
    Also, though, that broadband is a significant portion of a 
grant application and compliance as well. It takes me an AFN's 
Federal program officer for the NTIA tribal broadband 
connectivity program about an hour and a half to work on 
certain aspects of our compliance. That is two attorneys with 
high-speed broadband.
    I can't imagine if Josh Standing Horse, who is our FPO for 
NTIA was having to do this with 74 tribes spread out from 
Utqiagvik to Unalaska, all the way down to Saxman. It would be 
impossible. It would be an administrative burden that would be 
too heavy a load to bear.
    Senator Murkowski. Thank you for that. I so appreciate 
gleaning from what AFN and others have done some of the lessons 
learned here. We need to be paying attention to that.
    I want to turn to you quickly, Mr. Lozano. We have heard 
that we are seeing some delays in BIA Realty Service. It is 
impacting home construction projects on some of our Native 
allotments in rural Alaska and parts of the State that are just 
desperate for housing.
    Where can Federal agencies like HUD, NBIA, look to 
streamline their realty process? Is it just in simplifying the 
approval process? What needs to be done here?
    Mr. Lozano. Thank you for the question, Senator Murkowski. 
Also before I answer that question, I would like to thank 
Chairman Schatz, and Vice Chair Murkowski for your support and 
constant champion work for NAHASDA. We truly appreciate that, 
and all the hard work you have done, and other Committee 
members as well.
    As you know, BIA is still a slow process. Senate Bill 70, I 
think, is a perfect solution, a fix that came out of the 
Committee that will help BIA process and put pressure on them 
to process any request sooner. Anything along that nature. I 
think by making the BIA be more transparent with tribes, 
homebuyers and lenders about where they are in the process will 
be a help as well, as transparency always increases 
accountability.
    Senator Murkowski. So transparency and SB 70. Thank you. 
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Cortez Masto.

           STATEMENT OF HON. CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, 
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA

    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking 
Member. I too agree, this is a great panel and a great start 
for this Congress. Thank you all for being here. An important 
conversation.
    Mr. Frias, first of all, let me say thank you, thank you 
for highlighting the piece of legislation that I have 
introduced. I want to talk a little bit about this, because 
this legislation to me was something that sitting down with the 
tribes just in Nevada we had focused on how we could look at 
and really address economic development for so many of our 
tribes. Not just in Nevada, but across the Country, by looking 
at the tax code.
    So one of the things I am interested in, Mr. Frias, is this 
restriction because of the language ``essential government 
function.'' In particular, if you don't mind, I would love for 
you to discuss the importance of repealing that language, 
essential government function test, for tribes.
    According to Brookings, who has taken a look at this, State 
governments issue a total of $47 billion every year in non-
taxable municipal bonds for infrastructure. Tribes, because of 
this restriction, issue less than $90 million a year.
    So everyone on the Committee knows it is an issue. Would 
you touch on that a little bit and how it would make a 
difference, just by repealing this, it would be for the tribes 
and their economic development?
    Mr. Frias. Thank you, Senator, for that question. 
Eliminating the essential governmental function test, which is 
an arbitrary test that prevents tribes from using tax-exempt 
bonds for the same types of activities that State and local 
governments use them for, it would allow us to use general tax-
exempt bonds for convention facilities, for hotels, for other 
things, golf courses.
    All we are really asking for when we look at this is for 
parity for tribal governments, where you treat it the same as 
State governments. That greater flexibility promotes tribal 
self-determination, which is completely in line with the trust 
responsibility.
    It is a big hurdle for tribal governments, and I think what 
you highlight is the amount which these tax-exempt bonds are 
used by State and local governments, we can see a much greater 
uptake from tribal governments, if we look, for example, at 
tribal economic development bonds, which didn't have this 
restriction in it. When it was first put out as a pilot 
program, the cap was very quickly reached by tribes.
    So clearly, there is a need, and a desire on the part of 
tribes for this sort of financing. Thank you.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
    You also talked about new market tax credits. I want to 
touch on this, because another part of the Tribal Tax Parity 
bill that I have introduced provides a tribal set-aside of $175 
million for the new markets tax credit. Historically, we have 
seen a very low share of the tax credit allocation going to 
tribal lands.
    What are the barriers for tribal participation in the new 
markets tax credit program? How do you think a direct tribal 
set-aside would help?
    Mr. Frias. I really appreciate that you included that in 
your legislation. I think it is really important.
    Since 2018, there have been no allocations from the CDFI 
Fund to entities dedicated 100 percent to working in Indian 
Country. Numerous stakeholders that I have talked to attribute 
this to a lack of understanding of Indian Country on the part 
of the CDFI Fund within the CDFI Fund itself.
    A set-aside would ensure that the funds are going to 
entities that work in Indian Country, have a familiarity with 
Indian Country, and understand the unique status of tribes, 
rather than entities which just express an interest in working 
in Indian Country but have no experience, don't understand the 
particularities, the importance of tribal law, the ways in 
which tribal lands are held, which can vary. It is very 
different in Alaska than it is down here in the lower 48.
    So a set-aside would make new market tax credits much more 
available to Indian Country.
    Senator Cortez Masto. I appreciate that, thank you. I would 
offer to my colleagues to join me; it is the Native American 
Tax Parity and Relief Act. We have all been talking about the 
needs for our tribal communities and the resources that are 
essential.
    I think part of this is giving them parity to develop their 
own resources through economic development. Parity with the 
States, parity with local governments to be able to do so. That 
gives them the autonomy that we are talking about, trying to 
provide essential resources and everything that we have just 
talked about here, to at least change the tax code to give them 
some sort of parity in this space as well.
    Thank you all for being here. I appreciate it, Mr. 
Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much. Senator Mullin?

              STATEMENT OF HON. MARKWAYNE MULLIN, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA

    Senator Mullin. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much. Sorry if I 
disturbed everybody a while ago, but I really stuck my foot in 
my mouth back there and everybody was laughing at me. I am sure 
no one has ever done that before, but that was truly me.
    Ms. Zientek, thank you so much for being here. As a fellow 
Oklahoman, I just want to tell you I appreciate it your rich 
history in serving our communities, Potawatomi, the Citizens, I 
think you guys had 38,000 enrollees, and now working all the 
way as president, I can't tell you how much I appreciate it.
    Working with education the way that you do, your heart, 
your passion for it, you are the expert of this. I think Indian 
Country is very blessed to have you representing our kids and 
our educators. So thank you.
    With that being said, I would like you to take an 
opportunity to just explain the unique challenges that you have 
with education and Indian Country when it comes to funding and 
when it comes to especially Native languages. It is something 
that is near and dear to our heart. I think Cherokee Nation has 
done a phenomenal job on immersion.
    My first trip with Don Young was to Alaska, and we went to 
different towns, working with different entities, trying to 
figure out how to keep us from losing our Native languages. 
Because there is no place in the Country where we are literally 
losing Native languages faster than Alaska right now.
    It is a challenge, because that is our history, that is our 
heritage, that is how we tell our stories. Can you speak a 
little bit that?
    Ms. Zientek. Absolutely, miigwech for that opportunity and 
for those words.
    It is absolutely a huge issue within indigenous communities 
to re-learn or reclaim our Native language, especially for 
dispersed tribes like the Citizen Potawatomi Nation, the 
Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma certainly leading the way in that 
effort. I had an opportunity yesterday evening to meet Ms. 
Feeling, the wife of the late Mr. Durbin Feeling. Very grateful 
for the Durbin Feeling and the NALRC legislation that has been 
recently passed.
    I think the challenges are certainly reaching our tribal 
citizens throughout our Nation and the world. These two laws 
are great first steps. I am really eager to see how Durbin 
Feeling will do that assessment to know where programs are 
residing and what is being successful so we can model those 
throughout the rest of Indian Country.
    So of course more funding in that area, and continued 
funding in that area is helpful. Then the sense we are bringing 
together those resources and making those relationships that 
again we can learn from each other, we can collaborate.
    And then continuing to bring these experts to the table, so 
that we can make sure to follow their lead, these language 
experts, these elders, these people who have dedicated their 
lives to language learning. They are the ones; we should be 
following their lead.
    Senator Mullin. Right. Thank you so much. I appreciate 
that.
    Ms. Lawrence, do you believe that 638 contracting can apply 
to USDA's FSA inspections for tribal beef processing 
facilities?
    Ms. Lawrence. I think it could, definitely. Anything that 
allows our tribal communities to handle their business would be 
super helpful. Just seeing all the opportunities that come 
forward with self-governance and taking a look at what is 
really needed I think would help shape what is actually needed 
in the community. So yes, I see opportunity there for sure.
    Senator Mullin. So if tribes could perform their own 
inspections, what specifically do you think Congress needs to 
do in the next Farm Bill to help promote this?
    Ms. Lawrence. That specifically?
    Senator Mullin. Yes. Right now we have Cherokee Nation, we 
have the Quapaws, Creek, but those are the only three that are 
doing it, right? Four? Which one am I missing? Do you know? 
This is what happens when you don't read your questions, you 
are kind of going off the cuff here.
    But there is a good opportunity, because we don't have 
enough inspectors anyway. It is very difficult, it is 
prohibitive. It is a unique opportunity where tribes could help 
fill that gap. Since we have to do a Farm Bill this year, we 
have to, I see it as a great opportunity for us to do it.
    Maybe that is an opportunity that, Ms. Lawrence, you and I 
and whoever else would like to work on it with us could come up 
with specific language to help put in there to advance true 
sovereignty.
    Ms. Lawrence. Absolutely.
    Senator Mullin. And economic growth in our back yard.
    Ms. Lawrence. Yes. We are very interested in that and would 
love to work with you on coming up with some language to 
include that in the Farm Bill.
    We are actually going to be having a fly-in at the end of 
this month to all four of those facilities in Oklahoma. I 
welcome you to come along. We will be working on that.
    Senator Mullin. At the end of this month.
    Ms. Lawrence. Yes.
    Senator Mullin. Thanks for the notice. Appreciate that. 
Maybe we can work on that. We will see.
    Let's see if my staff can be there. We would like to 
participate in it. If I can't personally, I want to make sure 
my team is part of it. Thank you.
    Ms. Lawrence. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Mullin. Thanks to all the 
testifiers.
    Just a couple of comments before we move on. It seems to me 
there is consensus on the Committee that we need to collect our 
thoughts and our proposals, and I mean on the Committee as well 
as the expert witnesses, and come up with some discrete 
proposals for the Farm Bill. So let's do that together with 
staff.
    Then in the category of grants implementation, I think 
there is some work to do. I am going to start my question on 
grants with Chair Lindsey. Native Hawaiians are now eligible 
for more money than ever, but it is the problem of knowing 
where to look and how to apply. You just bought yourself 
something that you have to execute and may make you subject to 
audit.
    Is there any thought for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs to 
serve as a resource to other Native Hawaiian organizations to 
identify these grant opportunities?
    Ms. Lindsey. Thank you, Senator, for asking the question 
and prompting supportive and collaborative strategies and 
solutions. I offer three points for the Committee's 
consideration.
    First, promote a community-based mindset of collaborative 
versus competitive funding. This can look like facilitating A, 
organizations with more Federal funding process and reporting 
experiences, [phrase in Native tongue], or support less 
experienced organizations to meet the front office, which is 
the prospecting, alignment, collaboration, application writing, 
implementation reporting.
    And the back office, the responsibilities and 
accountabilities. For example, the operations accounting 
reporting, valuation, human resources, payroll, and what we 
describe as [phrase in Native tongue] or the older sibling or 
[phrase in Native tongue], the younger sibling relationship.
    Or B, the creation and/or funding of shared services of 
organizations or function set can provide not only application 
of front office and back-office grant-related supports.
    Second, federally-fund technical assistance, contracts, via 
institutions of higher learning that specifically require 
recipients to assist community organizations with the Federal 
grant opportunities supports. For example, prospecting, 
alignment, collaboration, application writing, implementation 
reporting.
    Communities are often frustrated by colleges or 
universities who have faculty and/or staff writing the grants 
that do not support surrounding community-based organizations 
and programs. OHA could facilitate community-based 
relationships and collaborations with the University of Hawaii 
system. We have three campuses and seven community colleges and 
community programming.
    Third, leverage OHA's State agency status as a conduit for 
Federal funding to reach Native Hawaiian communities more 
directly via subcontracting and/or sub-granting processes. 
Utilization of OHA as a conduit could mitigate duplicative or 
minimize administrative or overhead costs across Federal 
grantor sources.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    I am going to get to, between the Inflation Reduction Act, 
some of the COVID relief funds, and of course the IIJA, there 
is a lot of new money for Native people out there. Congress 
decided to make Native communities, to make tribes and Alaska 
Natives and Native Hawaiians eligible, right? But a lot of 
times, we used an existing statutory structure and just added 
who was eligible.
    The problem is, there is an old saying in Hawaii, that when 
you are talking to certain people in the government, they say, 
I don't care who wrote the law, I write the rules. So we are 
left with this problem of sort of the legacy rules and 
architecture and processes, so that it is fine that you are 
technically eligible. But the way these processes roll out are 
basically a series of roadblocks.
    I am going to ask this question of all of you for the 
record, because I think it does apply to everybody in every 
category, ag, housing, finance.
    I am going to start with Mr. Frias. Could you give me one 
example of the extent to which Congress' explicit intent to 
make Native communities eligible is being thwarted by people 
who in good faith were working over in Treasury and now are 
being told, accommodate the tribes, and they don't even know 
how to do that?
    I think what we need is a lot of information about that. 
There are a lot of knots to untangle. There is a lot of 
troubleshooting to do. But we need to know where this is 
happening, so we can exercise our oversight responsibly and 
frankly, give the information to the White House, to either 
Mitch Landrieu or John Podesta or whoever is point person on 
implementing these laws, so they can go into those agencies, 
burrow in and say, Congress made a law here, you have to not 
make it impossible for them to participate.
    Sorry for the long question. Go ahead.
    Mr. Frias. Thank you, Chairman Schatz, for the question. 
One would be the example I gave of confusion that has been 
created on the loan programs option at the Department of 
Energy. I don't believe it is in the statute, but there is 
confusion about whether tribes can access this money, $20 
billion in the IRA, if they are receiving other Federal 
funding. I don't believe that was at all your intent, but when 
the regulations are written in, it comes down to there is this 
restriction.
    Another example would be related to the Greenhouse Gas 
Reduction Fund, another large pot of money specifically 
mentioning CDFIs. But CDFIs won't be able to, under the 
guidance that was recently released, they are going to put out 
two, I believe, large grants. They are going to be much larger 
than the CDFIs, the Native CDFIs are going to be able to 
handle. Whereas clearly, the intention was to spread this money 
around and get it into a lot of local entities that are closer 
to the problem.
    Those are good examples of how Congress has expressed their 
intent and then when the regulations are drafted and they get 
out there, there is confusion and the intent of Congress is not 
expressed.
    The Chairman. Two things. All of you, please get back to us 
with examples of this. I don't want this to be an abstraction. 
I want us to have a list of problems to troubleshoot on your 
behalf, and I want to be able to hand over a list to Mitch 
Landrieu and John Podesta and the Office of Legislative Affairs 
at the White House so that they can go in there.
    I don't think that it is in their interests to have 
Congress' intent or President Biden's intent thwarted. It is 
just that people have been doing the same thing for a very long 
time. They are now being given a new mandate to accommodate. 
And they don't even know how they would go about doing that.
    So we really need this information as quickly as possible. 
I am quite sure we can follow up on a bipartisan basis.
    Senator Daines.

                STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE DAINES, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA

    Senator Daines. Chairman Schatz, Vice Chair Murkowski, 
thank you.
    I want to first welcome a fellow Montanan, Keri Jo 
Lawrence, welcome from Billings, Executive Director of the 
Intertribal Ag Council. My mom and dad grew up in Billings, my 
dad married the girl next door from Billings and my dad is an 
old Billings Senior High Bronc. So I feel like we are right 
back home today.
    It is also great to have a strong voice for agriculture, 
tribes, those that are driving our number one economic driver 
in Montana, which is ag. So thank you.
    My top priorities for this Congress are some of the top 
issues facing Montanans, it is increasing public safety, 
bolstering tribal sovereignty, and passing the last Indian 
water rights settlement in the State. I have helped lead the 
effort to finalize longstanding water compacts, and I look 
forward to getting the job done now for the Fort Belknap 
community.
    The CSKT compact took years, years of work. In fact, 
decades of work, and a lot of negotiation. Fort Belknap will 
likewise take a lot of negotiation. It will be long nights to 
ensure that the tribe, the counties, the local landowners, 
water users, and the governor of Montana can stand side by side 
in support.
    We must stay focused on the mission and pass a well-crafted 
bill that makes good on our promises to Indian Country and 
Montana as a whole. I look froward to taking that settlement to 
the next level.
    Public safety has been a top priority of mine for years. 
Yet I continue to hear the same concerns from our tribes. I 
have written countless letters, nothing changes. The BIA 
expects us to just provide them with more funding and the 
tribes see no difference on the ground. We need to empower our 
tribes, give them the raise, let them control their law 
enforcement instead of throwing money at BIA and just hoping it 
might stick.
    Putting Washington, D.C. in charge of public safety is the 
last thing we should be doing. Today, Congress is voting on a 
massive bipartisan rebuke, a repudiation, against D.C.'s far 
left pro-crime agenda.
    I know the leaders back in Indian Country, in Montana, see 
clearly the solutions are not here in Washington, D.C. They are 
in Browning, they are in Crow Agency, they are in Poplar, they 
are in Lame Deer, they are in Harlem.
    I look forward to continuing to work with Montana tribes to 
craft a bill that will finally put our tribes first. As 
sovereign nations, they should be first in defining how they 
address the issues of crime and enforcement of the law.
    Ms. Lawrence, I want to thank you again for coming to 
discuss important tribal issues and related to agriculture. It 
is our top economic driver in Montana. This Farm Bill is a 
chance to increase tribal participation in programs and 
continue to bolster food security and economic prosperity in 
tribal communities.
    Likewise, extend the good neighbor authority and supporting 
active forest management and public grazing will increase 
forest and wildlife health and better protect our communities 
from catastrophic wildfire.
    Ms. Lawrence, what actions should Congress be taking to 
support Montana and other ag producing tribes in this year's 
Farm Bill?
    Ms. Lawrence. Thank you for the question. First of all, I 
think authorizing the 638 authorities, compacting and 
contracting over feeding programs. I think in Indian Country, 
including SNAP, I think that would be an amazing step.
    Congress can eliminate the dual use prohibition that 
currently keeps feeding program participants from accessing 
both programs in the same month for FDPIR. FDPIR is the only 
feeding program where there is a dual use prohibition. 
Authorize the Buy Indian Act that prioritizes purchasing food 
in Indian Country for their feeding programs for tribal 
producers. That would be a strong economic driver.
    Authorize greater flexibilities in vendor requirements, so 
we can ensure tribal producers can provide food to their 
communities while being fairly compensated for the products 
they are providing. Also extend Indian hiring preferences to 
USDA, so that Native perspectives and lived experience are part 
of the Federal program delivery for all those programs.
    And of course, the consultation is definitely certain, it 
is needed so much. Substantive tribal input is critical. I 
think that can be accomplished by authorizing tribes to 
identify their resource concerns on tribal lands, for example. 
So delineating tribal set-asides within specific programs so it 
is really reaching tribal lands and tribal folks. Those are 
some first steps, for sure.
    Senator Daines. That is a lot of great input. Thank you. I 
appreciate it.
    As I wrap up, Ms. Holsey, a quick question. This gets back 
to the issue of maintaining your own police and public safety 
and sovereign territory. Ms. Holsey, how do we embolden tribes 
to get BIA and D.C. out of the way?
    Ms. Holsey. Thank you, Senator Daines, for that question. I 
know exceedingly there are multiple challenges, especially with 
tribal police forces, especially many like my own that are 
cross deputized. We seek parity also to stabilize. Currently, 
we have exceeding challenges with retaining our police force, 
because tribal nations are not eligible for pension plans and 
other things that would be in parallel to other police 
officers. So it is a revolving door.
    I know there is a tribal parity bill, and we are seeking 
support for that. It would be exceedingly important to 
stabilize that. For our tribal nation we probably, we are a 
force of seven. Having to retrain and retain consistently 
creates significant barriers in our tribal nations. I know we 
are one of 11 tribal nations in the State of Wisconsin. In my 
region, there are 35 tribal nations in the Midwest. I know that 
this has exceedingly been one of those issues.
    So we are seeing that parity.
    Senator Daines. Great. Ms. Holsey, thank you.
    Chairman Schatz, I appreciate it.
    The Chairman. Senator Lujan.

               STATEMENT OF HON. BEN RAY LUJAN, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO

    Senator Lujan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    One of my top priorities this Congress is advancing the 
Native American Voting Rights Act. I welcome everyone to come 
to the table to make this possible.
    Ms. Borromeo, yes or no, does the Alaska Federation of 
Natives agree that passage and enactment of the Native American 
Voting Rights Act should be a priority for Congress?
    Ms. Borromeo. Thank you for the question, Senator, and yes, 
we do. It is one of our priorities. Our number one priority, 
though, is implementation of this once-in-a-lifetime 
investment.
    Senator Lujan. Why is it important?
    Ms. Borromeo. Which one, sir?
    Senator Lujan. The Native American Voting Rights Act.
    Ms. Borromeo. Thank you. We have a long, detailed history 
of discrimination and disenfranchisement when it comes to 
making sure that we receive equitable access to the ballot box. 
Several of the provisions in NAVRA, we move those barriers and 
allow our people to exercise our right to vote on par with the 
rest of the Country.
    We have been working very closely with both the Native 
American Rights Fund, National Congress of American Indians, 
and then of course internally in Alaska with most of our tribes 
and Native corporations and tribal non-profits to make sure 
that the provisions are tailored to Alaska, and that they work 
for Alaska.
    So we would like to see that piece of legislation move as 
well this Congress.
    Senator Lujan. I appreciate that. I also am grateful that 
when we worked with you and with others to hep build this, we 
were blessed that it initially received bipartisan support as 
well. I am hopeful we can find a path forward to get this done.
    Another one of my priorities is ensuring that every tribe, 
especially those without broadband, can access funding Congress 
provides for that purpose, including the NTIA Tribal Broadband 
Connectivity Fund. I am focused on providing digital equity for 
tribes. One part of your testimony stood out to me. Yes or no, 
is it true that applications for NTIA's Tribal Broadband funds 
can only be submitted electronically?
    Ms. Borromeo. Thank you for the question, Senator. It is 
true that originally that was their intent. They did come 
around at the end of round one and we are accepting some 
submissions via mail. But it was very late in the process.
    Where we did see the bigger hangup with that, Senator, is 
on the Treasury's Capital Projects Fund side, which one of the 
stated purposes is to advance broadband to underserved areas, 
and you could only apply for the allocation, which was a 
formula allocation, non-competitive, through the internet.
    Senator Lujan. I appreciate that, Madam Vice Chair. That is 
where my head is. That is incredible. I am hoping everyone 
watching can fix what needs to be fixed. I appreciate what NTIA 
has done, but more must be done.
    Thank you for that powerful testimony as well. How would 
you recommend NTIA change their process so that areas with zero 
connectivity can still apply for broadband funds, even with 
this change, or Treasury Department?
    Ms. Borromeo. Thank you again for that question, Senator 
Lujan. Honestly, the recommendation is to keep doing what they 
are doing. NTIA has been one of the more responsive agencies 
out there. When AFN comes and highlights a hurdle, they have 
worked diligently to remove that hurdle. Of course, we wish 
they would move a little bit quicker in issuing some of the 
programs, digital equity being one of them.
    But we also understand that the administration of these 
funds is a Herculean task, and that they are doing the best 
they can.
    Where I always point members of Congress and other 
administrative officials is over to the Department of Treasury. 
Fatima Abbas has been elevated to a permanent office in the 
Office of Native American Recovery, and she is a superstar. If 
we could clone her and send her out into the rest of the 
agencies, I am confident that all of the laws, as you enacted 
them and the spirit in which they were enacted, would be 
implemented in no time flat.
    Senator Lujan. I agree with your assessment. I appreciate 
that testimony.
    Mr. Frias, with your testimony you talked about easements 
and approvals as it pertains to infrastructure. Mr. Frias, yes 
or no, would you support legislation to require the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs to maintain a national data base of all rights 
of way on tribal lands, to allow tribes to access records from 
their homelands?
    Mr. Frias. Thank you, Senator Lujan. Although I live in 
Maryland now, it is always a pleasure to see my New Mexico 
delegation.
    Yes, absolutely, and I would hope the legislation would 
also return authority to tribal governments to approve rights-
of-way, leases, and permits on their own lands.
    Senator Lujan. I appreciate that. Mr. Chairman, Madam Vice 
Chair, I know we have talked about this quite a bit. But I am 
certainly hopeful that we can find a path forward.
    I often share the story of a bridge in Manuelito on the 
Navajo Nation where there was this terrific storm that came on. 
Declaration of disaster was issued, FEMA awarded the money, and 
then BIA wouldn't approve the easement. The money was lost, the 
money was recaptured.
    But it took 12 years. People had to drive miles and miles 
to get to school, kids, fire engines couldn't get to 
emergencies. But it is what I fear could happen to these 
infrastructure projects as well.
    Mr. Chairman, if I may on a note of personal privilege, Mr. 
Frias, I hope you and I can speak about another issue, the 
Traditional Use Act, which is a piece of legislation I have 
been working on for 13 years. We can visit later. It is a piece 
of legislation that encourages harmony and bringing people 
together.
    I know you wrote an email to the House Natural Resources 
Committee telling them of your opposition. We have never spoken 
about it. So I hope we can chat about this. It is a piece of 
legislation that embedded in it says that it will not infringe 
up on Native American rights at all, no sovereign rights.
    So I am hoping we can address this. It is a New Mexico 
issue. It is an issue where it is families that live with each 
other, work with each other, often married to one another. I am 
certainly hopeful we can find a way to ensure that communities 
that don't have lobbyists, that don't have financial means, 
that are often run over by the Federal Government, this sounds 
familiar, can get a little support. I am hoping we can chat 
about that in the near future.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Frias. I look forward to speaking with you about that, 
Senator.
    The Chairman. Senator Hoeven.

                STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN HOEVEN, 
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA

    Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Holsey, I want to talk to you about the crime, and 
victims on the reservation, what we can do to mitigate crime on 
the reservation. Actually since I was chairman of this 
committee, I have been working to advance the SURVIVE Act, 
which would set aside 5 percent of the Crime Victims Fund to be 
allocated directly to tribes. So I continue to do it to make 
sure we are doing an adequate job of funding law enforcement, 
and protection and assistance for victims.
    I would like to know what steps you think Congress can take 
and this Committee should take to better address public safety 
on the reservation, particularly for women and children.
    Ms. Holsey. Thank you for that question, Senator Hoeven. As 
committee co-chair of VAWA, I appreciate that. To your point, 
safety and wellness of our citizens impacts many departments, 
from law enforcement to social services and the protections, 
especially the most recent reauthorization of VAWA.
    But it also requires cooperation of multi-Federal agencies 
in order to share communications across the board. As you know, 
especially as it relates to violence against women or human 
trafficking and other issues that many tribal nations contend 
with, it is cross-jurisdictional, it is interstate, sometimes 
across State lines. And sometimes internationally. It requires 
immediate response to that.
    So having the ability to have those interpolations of 
communication through multi-jurisdictional law enforcement 
agencies, as well as other Federal agencies, is exceedingly 
helpful. To your point, making sure that there are set-asides 
or specific resources to help us, sharing data especially 
creates a level of safety because it has a more timely response 
to somebody that is in danger or who is missing or who is 
unaccounted for.
    As many of you know, there is an erasure issue among tribal 
nations. We have citizens that have been missing for centuries 
sometimes. So now there is a more robust attempt to start to 
resolve. But I appreciate Chairman Schatz' statement at the 
beginning of the hearing where he said no decisions about us. 
So it requires robust consultation with tribal nations. Because 
tribal nations are not monolithic. They have unique needs and 
jurisdiction issues and their own tribal governing laws.
    So I would say that would be a robust start in that 
inclusion and consultation as to how to resolve these issues 
and bring safety to our tribal nations.
    Senator Hoeven. That is a good point. There is incredible 
diversity among the 700-plus reservations across the United 
States. I think a lot of people don't realize that, but that is 
a really strong point.
    Another thing that we have worked on and are working on 
diligently is more BIA law enforcement officers. There is a 
shortage. We worked to set up additional training, for example, 
we have a BIA law enforcement center at Camp Grafton in North 
Dakota to help recruit and train BIA law enforcement officers.
    I am co-sponsoring with Senator Cortez Masto the Bridging 
Agency and Ensuring Safety for Native Communities Act, BADGES, 
we call it. I have worked with Senator Udall on some of these 
initiatives. So the work continues. This legislation would 
allow BIA to do their own background checks.
    Do you have any ideas on what else we can do, working with 
tribes to recruit and get more people into these BIA law 
enforcement positions?
    Ms. Holsey. I think it takes, it is going to take an entire 
look at even the structure of how officers are compensated and 
how that works. I know oftentimes even with different agency 
partners, even with the challenges most recently with the 
Secretary of IHS in terms of Roselyn Tso, in terms of the way, 
when you look at the parity of the wage and the significant job 
that you are asking people to adhere to, it oftentimes is 
looking at compensation structures and how that works.
    And making sure, as I previously stated, even for tribal 
nations, to not necessarily Interior police offices, but tribal 
police officers, in my instance, cross-deputized police 
officers, it is a stabilizing endeavor in making sure that 
there is parity.
    Because right now, we are in competition with our local 
county and our State to retain tribal officers. Because we are 
unable to provide police officers with a pension and the things 
they should be entitled to like any other officer that serves 
and protects any jurisdiction.
    Senator Hoeven. I am glad you said that. That is one of the 
things we are trying to get, more flexibility in wages and 
incentives to recruit. I am glad to hear you say that. Thank 
you so much.
    Again, thank you to the Chairman and Ranking Member for 
holding this hearing. Thanks to all of you for being here and 
for your work. I appreciate it.
    The Chairman. Senator Murkowski, for some closing remarks.
    Senator Murkowski. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I thought this 
was good input from those who are testifying today.
    I would like to continue this hearing in a way that is not 
hearing-based, but an ask, not only for those who are 
testifying, but for those who have been listening. We are 
looking for lessons learned. We are looking for an 
identification of those continuing barriers that prohibit 
tribes or organizations to move forward and freely access, 
whether it is the infrastructure funds, whether it is other 
funds that are available, programs that we have put in law.
    This Committee is an oversight committee. We put into, we 
are the authorizing committee that puts programs, whether it is 
NAHASDA or whatever the program may be, we need to know where 
things are working.
    So what you have laid out in terms of a challenge, Mr. 
Chairman, I think is really important here. We want those 
examples. I think it was very telling when Senator Lujan raised 
his example of the bridge, when Nicole raised her example of 
the broadband application. Every one of us had a reaction of, 
``you have to be kidding me.''
    So I think we need to have a category of stories where you 
can submit to the Committee the ``you have to be kidding me'' 
stories. You all know different situations where you have 
looked at it, you know what is going on, and it has gotten to 
the point where nobody can defend what is actually happening 
here.
    Those are the things I think, Mr. Chairman, you are a guy 
who likes to fix things. But in order for us to really fix 
things, the more detailed that we can get the issues, the 
better we are able to rattle some cages here and actually fix 
them. I look forward to doing that with you.
    Thank you. I look forward to the ``you have to be kidding 
me'' portal.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. Thank you very much, Vice Chair. I couldn't 
agree more.
    I think there is sometimes a tendency not to want to come 
to members of Congress, United States Senators, members of the 
Indian Affairs Committee with small stuff. There is also a 
tendency on the Committee to want to do big authorizing 
legislation, landmark stuff, the kind of stuff that when you 
retire, you can say, I passed this bill.
    But we are in a phase now where strategy is execution. 
Having been a professional non-profit executive for the earlier 
part of my career and doing some of those grant applications, I 
understand that this stuff can be hard or this stuff can be 
easy.
    I guess my encouragement is yes, get us information and do 
so as quickly as possible. But also, don't be afraid to ask for 
a small favor, not a big one. Sometimes it is just a nudge of 
an agency to undo a silly decision. We can all benefit from the 
laws that we have already passed.
    So if there are no further questions for our witnesses, 
members may also submit follow-up written questions for the 
record. The hearing record will be open for two weeks.
    I want to thank all the witnesses for their time and their 
testimony. This hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 4:07 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                            A P P E N D I X

   Prepared Statement of Hon. Doreen Blaker, President, Keweenaw Bay 
                            Indian Community
    Chairman Schatz, Vice Chair Murkowski, and honorable Members of the 
Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, my name is Doreen Blaker. I have 
the honor of serving as President of the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community 
(``Community'' or ``KBIC''). Thank you for the opportunity to provide 
testimony regarding the Community's priorities for the 118th Congress. 
My testimony will focus on the need for the United States to fulfill 
its trust obligation by correcting the injustices stemming from the 
breach of our treaties and the taking of our treaty-protected tribal 
lands. This objective would be achieved through the enactment of the 
Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Land Claim Settlement Act.
    The Keweenaw Bay Indian Community is located on the L'Anse Indian 
Reservation, which is near the town of Baraga, Michigan on the east 
side of Lake Superior's Keweenaw Peninsula. The L'Anse Reservation is 
the oldest and largest reservation within the state of Michigan. Our 
ancestors dwelt, hunted, fished, and gathered for hundreds of years in 
the forests, lakes, waterways, and wetlands near the Keweenaw Bay in 
the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.
    The expansion of the western frontier and the federal government's 
growing interest in the mineral resources of the south shore of Lake 
Superior led the United States to sign the 1842 Treaty of LaPointe 
(``1842 Treaty'') and the 1854 Treaty of LaPointe (``1854 Treaty'') 
with our ancestors. The 1842 Treaty addressed mineral rights and 
provided for the cession of tens of thousands of acres of lands west 
and south of Lake Superior, including those in the Keweenaw Bay area. 
However, the terms of the 1842 Treaty were specific and unequivocal 
regarding our ancestors' rights to continue to occupy, hunt, and fish 
in their homelands located within the cession area, including the 
Keweenaw Bay area.
    The 1854 Treaty provided that the signatory bands would transfer 
extensive and valuable land claims in Michigan and Wisconsin to the 
federal goverment in exchange for permanent reservations in their 
ancestral homelands. In addition, it described the L'Anse Reservation 
by its exterior boundaries and both the Community, and the United 
States understood that all land within these boundaries was reserved 
for the sole use of my people. The intent of the parties to the Treaty 
could not have been expressed more clearly: The United States promised 
in paragraph 11 that ``the Indians shall not be required to remove from 
the homes hereby set apart for them.''
    Unfortunately, this promise wasn't kept and in the latter half of 
the 19th Century and early in the 20th Century, the United States 
allowed various lands within the boundaries of the L'Anse Reservation 
to be wrongfully transferred to the State of Michigan. First, the 
Community was dispossessed of more than 1,300 acres of land that was 
reserved for the L'Anse Reservation and set aside in the 1854 Treaty. 
Lands were selected from the public domain throughout the State of 
Michigan for a 750,000-acre land grant to serve as payment for the 
construction of a canal at Sault Ste. Marie.
    Through either carelessness or expediency, the Secretary of the 
Interior approved the Canal Company's land selection on January 24, 
1855, fourteen days after the 1854 Treaty set aside the same lands as 
part of the L'Anse Reservation. The L'Anse Reservation lands were 
withdrawn from sale by the order of the President on March 7, 1855, but 
the title to the ``canal lands'' selected by Michigan, including those 
within the L'Anse Reservation, was transferred to the Canal Company in 
accordance with the orders of the Michigan Attorney General.
    Sadly, these were not the only lands within the L'Anse Reservation 
that were transferred to the State. Shortly after the signing of the 
1854 Treaty, the State of Michigan began demanding that the federal 
government issue it patents to wetlands within the L'Anse Reservation 
on grounds that a federal swamplands statute granted states the ability 
to select and claim such lands. For many years, the federal government 
flatly rejected Michigan's contentions and the United States General 
Land Office (``GLO'') refused to issue patents to Michigan.
    The United States Department of the Interior informed Michigan that 
its submission of a swamplands list did not obligate the United States 
to issue patents for such lands where the land was occupied and 
appropriated for the Indians. The United States Supreme Court ratified 
the legal rationale of this position in a 1906 decision, Wisconsin v. 
Hitchcock, holding that the signatory bands to the 1854 Treaty had 
never abandoned their physical presence or right of occupancy to the 
lands confirmed as their ``permanent reservations'' under the 1854 
Treaty and this trumped any federal statute granting any portion of 
reservation lands to the states.
    For unknown reasons, the GLO nonetheless issued Michigan patents to 
several thousand acres of swamplands in the L'Anse Reservation. These 
patents not only violated federal law, they subverted the established 
policies of the Department of the Interior and the Indian Affairs 
Office with respect to the creation of the L'Anse reservation through 
the 1854 Treaty. These swampland patents to Michigan were never 
cancelled or terminated, and the Community has never been compensated 
for the loss of the lands or for the resulting loss of economic 
opportunities associated with the lands.
    The Community has strengthened its efforts to resolve these 
longstanding land claims in the last few years. In the spirit of 
cooperation, we worked closely with our neighboring communities, the 
State of Michigan, the Department of the Interior, and our U.S. 
Congressional Delegation to develop the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community 
Land Claim Settlement Act (``KBIC Settlement Act''). This bipartisan, 
bicameral legislation was introduced on January 31, 2023, by Senators 
Gary Peters and Debbie Stabenow (S.195), and the House companion bill 
(H.R. 650) was introduced by Representative Jack Bergman.
    The KBIC Settlement Act:

    Acknowledges the uncompensated taking by the Federal 
        Government of the Reservation Swamp Lands and the Reservation 
        Canal Lands,

    Provides compensation to the Community for those takings,

    Extinguishes all claims by the Community to those lands 
        held by third parties,

    Confirms the ownership by the current landowners of those 
        lands, and

    Extinguishes all potential claims by the Community against 
        the United States, the State, and current landowners concerning 
        title to, use of, or occupancy of those lands.

    The Keweenaw Bay Indian Community urges the Senate Committee on 
Indian Affairs to hold a legislative hearing on S. 195, the Keweenaw 
Bay Indian Community Land Claim Settlement Act. Our neighboring 
communities--Baraga County, the Village of Baraga, and the Village of 
L'Anse--support this legislation; Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer 
expressed support for the legislation; and after careful review of 
pertinent documents, Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs Bryan 
Newland ``determined the Tribe's claims to the Swamp Lands and Canal 
Lands have merit.''
    Thank you for the opportunity to share the Community's top priority 
for the 118th Congress. Enactment the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community 
Settlement Act would have wide-reaching benefits. KBIC would finally be 
compensated for the taking of our invaluable lands and the resulting 
missed opportunities; our neighbors who innocently acquired these lands 
would have clear title; and the State and federal governments would 
right a historical wrong.
                                 ______
                                 
    Prepared Statement of Hon. Linda Capps, Vice Chairman, Citizen 
                           Potawatomi Nation
    On behalf of the Citizen Potawatomi Nation (CPN or Nation), I write 
in response to a request from the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs 
(SCIA) during a hearing on March 8, 2023. Senator Murkowski requested 
testimony from tribes regarding continuing barriers to implementation 
of tribal programs. Several instances of agency roadblocks come to mind 
that have plagued CPN over the years, but three of those are 
particularly egregious.
    First, from the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). 
Under the authority given in P.L. 102-477, tribes may add DHHS programs 
to their 477 plans to unify program accounting, reporting, and 
administrative oversight under a single-cause umbrella supporting the 
advancement of employment and related services within Indian 
communities. This is in contrast with the per-grant separate accounting 
and reporting typically required by DHHS. Currently, DHHS will not 
allow a tribe to both begin administering a new program and add that 
program to their 477 plan in the same year. Instead, tribes are forced 
to initiate each new program separately under the traditional grantee 
structure, and prove one year of successful operation. In the second 
year, all of that structure is eliminated, and the program in question 
is reconfigured to operate under 477. Tribes being forced to operate as 
traditional grantees for the first year of a program creates new cost 
and training burdens, just to throw it all away and start over with the 
477 structure in year two. This happens for all 477-eligible DHHS 
grants, including Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and 
the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG).
    Second, from the Department of Energy (DOE). Section 40101 (d) of 
the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law authorizes non-competitive formula 
grants to states and tribes for projects that increase resilience of 
the electrical grid. Because tribes are not listed as ``eligible 
entities'' in the statutory language, they are forced to apply for the 
funds, then petition the Secretary of Energy to be made an eligible 
entity. Only then can they directly implement projects using their 
allocation. If they are not approved for eligible entity status, a 
third party must do the relevant work on behalf of a tribe, which must 
make a subaward to said third party and oversee them as a grantee. 
Additionally, if a tribe is approved for eligible entity status, they 
are responsible for both the 15 percent match required of recipients, 
as well as the 100 percent match required of implementing entities 
listed in Section 40101 (d). This is not a reasonable expectation, nor 
is it spelled out in statute. There will be tribal applicants who wish 
to implement their own projects as eligible entities but cannot provide 
115 percent cost match. Tribes should not be forced into a subaward 
relationship with third parties for work they can do themselves.
    Third, from the Department of Homeland Security. Assistance funds 
from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) are occasionally 
made available to tribes with a qualifying disaster declaration in 
their communities through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). 
The administrative burden to receive these funds is frankly astounding. 
Tribes must designate at least one staff member to serve as the lead 
for the project, and undergo a federal pre-employment background check, 
which includes extensive family and employment history details and 
explicit authorization for a credit review. Once that is complete, the 
staff member has to request access to the FEMA National Emergency 
Management Information System (NEMIS), which requires either an 
authorized federal computer system be issued to the staff member, or 
they must travel to the nearest FEMA site. For CPN this is 3.5 hours 
away. In addition, tribes must also have an approved Hazard Mitigation 
Plan and a separate Hazard Mitigation Administration Plan complete 
prior to the application deadline. These documents are extensive 
planning and execution documents that detail how a tribe will respond 
once funds are received. All of this is required, often for less than 
$100,000 in hazard mitigation funds. It was only because of exceptional 
assistance from FEMA Region 6 that CPN was able to successfully 
complete an HMGP application. Understandably, tribes do not often apply 
for these funds, even though specific allocations are set aside for 
affected tribes.
    There are more instances of policy and regulatory roadblocks to 
successful program implementation than can reasonably covered in this 
response. The examples in this letter are not exhaustive; an 
examination of Indian programs across the federal government will show 
similarities in every agency. CPN suggests that SCIA membership request 
a GAO review of these types of roadblocks, agency-by-agency, with an 
aim towards a long-term corrective action plan that will increase the 
efficiency and efficacy of tribal programs across the board. However, 
we also look forward to a portal option for tribes to submit their own 
experiences, such as the one briefly mentioned by Senator Murkowski 
during the March 8th hearing. CPN appreciates the opportunity to offer 
comments on continuing barriers for federal tribal programs.
                                 ______
                                 
 Prepared Statement of William Smith, Chairman, National Indian Health 
                                 Board
    Chairman Schatz, Vice Chairwoman Murkowski, and Members of the 
Committee, on behalf of the National Indian Health Board (NIHB) and the 
574 sovereign federally recognized American Indian and Alaska Native 
(AI/AN) Tribal nations we serve, thank you for the opportunity to 
provide testimony on priorities for Indian health in the 118th 
Congress.
    Tribal nations have a unique legal and political relationship with 
the United States. Through its acquisition of land and resources, the 
United States formed a fiduciary relationship with Tribal nations 
whereby it has recognized a trust relationship to safeguard Tribal 
rights, lands, and resources. \1\ In fulfillment of this tribal trust 
relationship, the United States ``charged itself with moral obligations 
of the highest responsibility and trust'' toward Tribal nations. \2\ 
Congress reaffirmed its duty to provide for Indian health care when it 
enacted the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (25 U.S.C.  1602), 
declaring that it is the policy of this Nation, in fulfillment of its 
special trust responsibilities and legal obligations to Indians--to 
ensure the highest possible health status for Indians and to provide 
all resources necessary to effect that policy. Unfortunately, those 
responsibilities and legal obligations remain unfulfilled and Indian 
Country remains in a health crisis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515 (1832).
    \2\ Seminole Nation v. United States, 316 U.S. 286, 296-97 (1942).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Health Status of Indian Country
    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) now reports 
that life expectancy for AI/ANs has declined by nearly 7 years, and 
that our average life expectancy is now only 65 years-equivalent to the 
nationwide average in 1944. \3\ With a life expectancy 10.9 years less 
than the national average, \4\ Native Americans die at higher rates 
that those of other Americans from chronic liver disease and cirrhosis, 
diabetes mellitus, unintentional injuries, assault/homicide, 
intentional self-harm/suicide, and chronic lower respiratory disease. 
\5\ Native American women are 4.5 times more likely than non-Hispanic 
white women to die during pregnancy. \6\ The CDC also found that, 
between 2005 and 2014, every racial group experienced a decline in 
infant mortality except for Native Americans \7\ who had infant 
mortality rates 1.6 times higher than non-Hispanic whites and 1.3 times 
the national average. \8\ Native Americans are also more likely than 
people in other U.S. demographics to experience trauma, physical abuse, 
neglect, and post-traumatic stress disorder. \9\ Additionally, Native 
Americans experience some of the highest rates of psychological and 
behavioral health issues as compared to other racial and ethnic groups 
\10\ which have been attributed, in part, to the ongoing impacts of 
historical trauma. \11\ The chronic underfunding of the HIS is one 
significant contributing factor to this disparities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for 
Disease Prevention and Control, Provisional Life Expectancy Estimates 
for 2021 (hereinafter, ``Provisional Life Expectancy Estimates''), 
Report No. 23, August 2022, available at: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/
data/vsrr/vsrr023.pdf, accessed on: October 13, 2022 (total for All 
races and origins minus non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native).
    \4\ Id.
    \5\ See, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Broken Promises: 
Continuing Federal Funding Shortfall for Native Americans (hereinafter 
``Broken Promises''), 65, available at: https://www.usccr.gov/files/
pubs/2018/12-20-Broken-Promises.pdf, accessed on: November 20, 2022.
    \6\ Broken Promises at 65.
    \7\ Broken Promises at 65.
    \8\ Broken Promises at 65.
    \9\ Broken Promises at 79-84.
    \10\ Walls, et al., Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services 
Preferences among American Indian People of the Northern Midwest, 
COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH J., Vol. 42, No. 6 (2006) at 522, https://
link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs10597-006-9054-7.pdf, accessed 
on: November 20, 2022.
    \11\ Kathleen Brown-Rice, Examining the Theory of Historical Trauma 
Among Native Americans, PROF'L COUNS, available at: http://
tpcjournal.nbcc.org/examining-the-theory-of-historical
-trauma-among-native-americans/, accessed on: November 22, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The following testimony discusses top legislative issues for Indian 
Health. We also enclose the full 2023 Legislative and Policy Agenda for 
a more comprehensive view of the health needs of Indian Country.
Renewal of the Special Diabetes Program for Indians.
    We would like to highlight the need for Congress to renew the 
Special Diabetes Program for Indians (SDPI). It expires on September 
30, 2023. SDPI serves 780,000 American Indians and Alaska Natives 
across 302 programs in 35 states. SDPI focuses on community-directed 
approaches to treat and prevent Type 2 diabetes in Tribal communities 
that are culturally informed. American Indians and Alaska Natives 
suffer disproportionately from Type 2 diabetes, but thanks to SDPI, 
that statistic is improving. Between 2013 and 2017, the there was a 5.5 
percent decrease in the prevalence of type 2 diabetes for AI/ANs. \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ ''Special Diabetes Program for Indians 2020 Report to 
Congress. Changing the Course of Diabetes: Charting Remarkable 
Progress.'' IHS Division of Diabetes Treatment and Prevention. 2020. 
Accessed February 10, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    By allowing Tribes to determine their own approach, SDPI has become 
the nation's most effective federal initiative to combat diabetes and 
serves as a useful model both for diabetes programs nationwide and 
public health programs in Indian Country. SDPI has resulted in 
documented lower incidence of end Stage renal disease and lower 
prevalence of Type 2 diabetes among AI/ANs. All these things save 
taxpayer dollars in medical costs.
    Communities with SDPI-funded programs have seen substantial growth 
in diabetes prevention resources, including more than doubling the 
number of on-site nutrition services, and physical activity and weight 
management specialists for adults, and an exponential increase of sites 
with physical activity services for youth. For the first time, from 
2013 to 2017 diabetes incidence in AI/ANs decreased each year. Between 
1996 and 2013, incidence rates of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in AI/
AN individuals with diabetes declined by 54 percent. This reduction 
alone is estimated to have already saved $520 million between 2006-
2015. \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Department of Health and Human Services, Assistant Secretary 
for Planning and Evaluation. ``The Special Diabetes Program for 
Indians: Estimates of Medicare Savings.'' May 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    NIHB appreciates the work that the members of the Senate Committee 
on Indian Affairs have done to support SDPI reauthorization over the 
years. Your leadership in supporting this critical program has been 
essential in ensuring that we can sustain the major accomplishments of 
this life-saving program. Unfortunately, SDPI has been flat funded at 
$150 million since FY 2004. This has resulted in a significant loss of 
resources due to increases costs for medical staff; equipment; 
supplies; and other interventions.
    In 2023, we are requesting SDPI be permanently authorized and 
funded at a level of at least $250 million per year (with annual 
increases tied to medical inflation). We were pleased to see the Biden 
Administration's FY 2024 budget request which also recommended $250 
million for SDPI. This increase will allow for important program 
expansion and keep SDPI programs whole as there will be decreases to 
the program in coming years. It is also important to note that last 
year, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) expanded the 
pool of potential grantees beyond current grantees to all eligible 
grantees. Practically, in 2022, this meant that there were 11 new 
grantees in the SDPI program, with the same level of funding. If we do 
not act to improve funding for this highly successful program, we risk 
all the accomplishments that SDPI has seen over the last several 
decades.
    In addition, Tribes and Tribal organizations have repeatedly called 
for a change to the SDPI program structure to allow recipients the 
option to receive funding through P.L. 93-638 contracts and compacts. 
This change will establish SDPI as an essential health service and 
remove the barriers of competitive grants--which do not honor the Trust 
and treaty obligation to tribal nations. Self-governance also removes 
unnecessary administrative burdens which leaves more funding available 
for services. Self-governance Supports Tribal sovereignty by 
transferring control of the program directly to Tribal governments.
    Thank you again for your strong support of this program, and we 
look forward to working with you in 118th Congress to renew this 
critical program at a funding level that will enable the program to 
serve more AI/ANs, and continue the remarkable results of this program.
Full Funding for the Indian Health Service
    Since 2003, Tribal leaders, technical advisors, and other policy 
advisors have met during the annual national Tribal Budget Formulation 
work session to collaboratively develop an estimate for full IHS 
funding. The IHS need-based funding aggregate cost estimate for Fiscal 
Year (FY) 2024 is approximately $51.4 billion, and the cost estimate 
for FY 2025 is $53.8 billion. \14\ For FY 2024 and 2025, the Workgroup 
continues to request the Hospitals & Health Clinics ($13.6 billion for 
FY 2025) and Purchased/Referred Care ($9.1 billion for FY 2025) IHS 
line items receive the largest increase. The Workgroup also continues 
to request the Alcohol and Substance Abuse ($4.8 billion for FY 2025), 
Mental Health ($4.5 billion for FY 2025), Indian Health Care 
Improvement Fund ($3.7 billion for FY 2025), and Healthcare Facilities 
Construction ($2.5 billion for FY 2025) line items receive the next 
largest increases for IHS. The annual Workgroup request includes a 
detailed justification for spending by IHS account or budget policy 
issue and NIHB supports the Tribally-driven, data-based cost estimates 
and justifications of the National Tribal Budget Formulation Workgroup 
for the IHS. \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ Workgroup publications available at: https://www.nihb.org/
legislative/budget_formulation.php, accessed on: February 26, 2023.
    \15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mandatory Funding for the Indian Health Service
    IHS spending should be provided through mandatory direct 
appropriations with adjustments for inflation and population growth in 
an allocation mutually agreed to by Tribal governments. NIHB supports 
Tribes in their call for a direct appropriation codified in statute. 
Additionally, NIHB supports the immediate transfer of certain IHS 
account payments, such as Contract Support Costs and Payments for 
Tribal Leases to mandatory funding. This would fulfill obligations that 
are typically addressed through mandatory spending. Inclusion of 
accounts that are mandatory in nature under discretionary spending caps 
has resulted in a net reduction on the amount of funding provided for 
Tribal programs and, by extension, the ability of the federal 
government to fulfill its promises to Tribal nations.
Expand and Sustain IHS Advance Appropriations
    Until such time that IHS is provided mandatory direct 
appropriations, advance appropriations for the IHS are consistent with 
the trust and treaty obligations reaffirmed by the United States in the 
Indian Health Care Improvement Act. The advance appropriation enacted 
in the FY 2023 omnibus excluded certain accounts in the IHS budget and 
flat-funded the IHS accounts that it did include. While historic in its 
inclusion, a flat-funded IHS needs FY 2024 adjustments, at a minimum, 
for fixed costs and staffing for newly completed facilities and should 
also include the amounts requested by the IHS National Tribal Budget 
Formulation Workgroup. As the process begins to normalize, both IHS and 
Tribes have the collaborative tools to produce reliable advance 
appropriation requests. For this appropriations cycle, Tribes have 
already provided official input on the FY 2025 budget to IHS with 
representatives of the Office of Management and Budget in attendance.
Hold the Indian Health Service Harmless in any Spending Cuts or Control 
        Measures
    The IHS budget remains so small in comparison to the national 
budget that spending cuts or budget control measures would not result 
in any meaningful savings in the national debt, but it would devastate 
Tribal nations and their citizens. As Congress considers funding 
reductions in FY 2024, IHS must be held harmless. As we saw in FY 2013 
poor legislative drafting subjected our tiny, life-sustaining, IHS 
budget to a significant loss of base resources. Congress must ensure 
that any budget cuts--whether automatic or explicit--hold IHS and our 
people harmless. We cannot balance the budget on the backs of the First 
Americans.
Expansion of Tribal Self Governance at the Department of Health and 
        Human Services
    NIHB looks forward to working with the Committee this Congress on 
legislation to expand self-Governance at the Department of Health and 
Human Services beyond the IHS. Expanding Self-Governance at HHS is the 
logical next step for the Federal government to promote Tribal 
sovereignty and Self-Determination and improve services to American 
Indians and Alaska Natives.
    The recent pandemic has demonstrated the need for more coordinated 
funding, better communication and coordination between all Departments 
and agencies at the Federal level, and more equitable funding for all 
Tribes. Under Self-Governance, programs and services throughout HHS 
would be better designed and operated with better results, better 
health, and better social outcomes for Tribal citizens, their families, 
and communities. Tribal health programs would reduce administrative 
costs and eliminate onerous and duplicative reporting requirements. 
NIHB is confident that this is the next step in getting funding to 
Tribal Nations outside of the Indian Health Service.
Conclusion
    Thank you for your attention to these critical issues in the 118th 
Congress. The leadership of the Senate Committee of Indian Affairs is 
essential as Congress works to fulfill its role for the trust 
responsibility for health to Tribal Nations. Below NIHB includes our 
2023 Legislative and Policy Agenda * which provides an overview of key 
actions we are hoping to work with Congress and the Administration on 
this year. Please do not hesitate to reach out to NIHB with any 
questions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    * The information referred to has been retained in the Committee 
files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 ______
                                 
 Prepared Statement of the United South and Eastern Tribes Sovereignty 
                            Protection Fund
    The United South and Eastern Tribes Sovereignty Protection Fund 
(USET SPF) is pleased to provide the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs 
(SCIA) with the following testimony for the record of the Oversight 
Hearing on, ``Native communities' priorities for the 118th Congress.'' 
USET SPF continues to seek foundational and systemic change to our 
relationship with the United States, which will lead to a more 
appropriate, respectful, honorable, and modern diplomatic relationship 
for the 21st century. Toward this goal, we continue to urge SCIA to 
harness its long history of bipartisanship to enact bold, 
transformative policy that will have lasting impacts on the trust and 
treaty obligation and relationship. We offer the below items of 
interest and opportunities for collaboration during this Congress and 
the remaining years of the Biden Administration. This is by no means an 
exhaustive list of priorities for our member Tribal Nations, who, as 
governments, have broad and diverse interests across a host of issue 
areas, including housing, transportation, emergency services, social 
services, and veteran's affairs, among others. However, we view the 
below as the foundation for our initial engagement at the beginning of 
this new Congress.
    USET Sovereignty Protection Fund (USET SPF) is a non-profit, inter-
tribal organization advocating on behalf of thirty-three (33) federally 
recognized Tribal Nations from the Northeastern Woodlands to the 
Everglades and across the Gulf of Mexico. \1\ USET SPF is dedicated to 
promoting, protecting, and advancing the inherent sovereign rights and 
authorities of Tribal Nations and in assisting its membership in 
dealing effectively with public policy issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ USET SPF member Tribal Nations include: Alabama-Coushatta Tribe 
of Texas (TX), Catawba Indian Nation (SC), Cayuga Nation (NY), 
Chickahominy Indian Tribe (VA), Chickahominy Indian Tribe-Eastern 
Division (VA), Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana (LA), Coushatta Tribe of 
Louisiana (LA), Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians (NC), Houlton Band of 
Maliseet Indians (ME), Jena Band of Choctaw Indians (LA), Mashantucket 
Pequot Indian Tribe (CT), Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe (MA), Miccosukee 
Tribe of Indians of Florida (FL), Mi'kmaq Nation (ME), Mississippi Band 
of Choctaw Indians (MS), Mohegan Tribe of Indians of Connecticut (CT), 
Monacan Indian Nation (VA), Nansemond Indian Nation (VA), Narragansett 
Indian Tribe (RI), Oneida Indian Nation (NY), Pamunkey Indian Tribe 
(VA), Passamaquoddy Tribe at Indian Township (ME), Passamaquoddy Tribe 
at Pleasant Point (ME), Penobscot Indian Nation (ME), Poarch Band of 
Creek Indians (AL), Rappahannock Tribe (VA), Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe 
(NY), Seminole Tribe of Florida (FL), Seneca Nation of Indians (NY), 
Shinnecock Indian Nation (NY), Tunica-Biloxi Tribe of Louisiana (LA), 
Upper Mattaponi Indian Tribe (VA) and the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head 
(Aquinnah) (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction--Enact Laws that Recognize of Inherent Tribal Sovereignty 
        and Deliver Upon Trust and Treaty Obligations
    Tribal Nations are political, sovereign Nations. We have inherent 
sovereignty that pre-dates the founding of the United States. The U.S. 
Constitution, treaties, statutes, Executive Orders, and judicial 
decisions all recognize that the federal government has a fundamental 
trust and treaty relationship to Tribal Nations. This includes an 
obligation to uphold the right to self-government. Our federal partners 
must fully recognize the inherent right of Tribal Nations to fully 
engage in self-governance and self-determination, so we may exercise 
full decisionmaking in the management of our own affairs and 
governmental services, including jurisdiction over our lands and 
people.
    However, the full extent of our inherent sovereignty continues to 
go unacknowledged and, in some cases, is actively restricted by other 
units of government. This restriction includes federal, state, and 
local governments that undermine the provision of essential services to 
our citizens such as public safety, the health and welfare of our 
citizens, and the continuity and exercise of our cultures. We expect 
that you will exercise leadership in this space, including in 
circumstances where supporting Tribal sovereignty may be at odds with 
other interests or political positions.
    Further, as you well know, Native people have endured many 
injustices as a result of federal policy, including federal actions 
that sought to terminate Tribal Nations, assimilate Native people, and 
to erode Tribal territories, learning, and cultures. This story 
involves the cession of vast land holdings and natural resources, 
oftentimes by force, to the United States out of which grew an 
obligation to provide benefits and services--promises made to Tribal 
Nations that exist in perpetuity. These resources are the very 
foundation of this nation and have allowed the United States to become 
the wealthiest and strongest world power in history. Federal 
appropriations and services to Tribal Nations and Native people are 
simply a repayment on this perpetual debt. USET SPF has consistently 
called upon the United States to deliver and fulfill its sacred 
promises to Tribal Nations and to act with honor and honesty in its 
dealings with Indian Country.
    Over the course of our centuries-long relationship, at no point has 
the United States honored these sacred promises; including its historic 
and ongoing failure to prioritize funding for Indian country. The 
chronic underfunding of federal Indian programs continues to have 
disastrous impacts upon Tribal governments and Native people. As the 
United States continues to break its promises to us, despite its own 
prosperity, Native people experience some of the greatest disparities 
among all populations in this country and have for generations.
    In December 2018, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights issued the 
Broken Promises Report, following years of advocacy from Tribal Nations 
and organizations seeking an update to the 2003 Quiet Crisis Report. 
The Commission concluded that the funding of the federal trust 
responsibility and obligations remains ``grossly inadequate'' and a 
``barely perceptible and decreasing percentage of agency budgets.'' The 
report confirms what we in Indian Country already know--with the 
exception of some minor improvements, the U.S. continues to neglect to 
meet its ``most basic'' obligations to Tribal Nations. Though these 
chronic failures have persisted throughout changes in Administration 
and Congress, it is time that both the legislative and executive 
branches confront and correct them.
    While USET SPF takes a firm position that all members of Congress 
have an obligation to Tribal Nations, the members of SCIA have a 
greater role in understanding and working toward fulfillment of trust 
and treaty obligations. As leaders who have consistently demonstrated a 
greater understanding of this commitment and obligation, we implore you 
to lead the change within Congress that is necessary to improve how the 
United States views, honors, and fulfills its promises to Indian 
Country, including through the enactment of the below proposals.
Expansion and Evolution of Tribal Self-Governance
    Despite the success of Tribal Nations in exercising authority under 
the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA), as 
well as the Practical Reforms and Other Goals to
    Reinforce the Effectiveness of Self-Governance and Self-
Determination (PROGRESS) for Indian Tribes Act, the goals of self-
governance have not been fully realized. Many opportunities still 
remain to improve and expand upon its principles. An expansion of 
Tribal self-governance to all federal programs under ISDEAA would be 
the next evolutionary step in the federal government's recognition of 
Tribal sovereignty and reflective of its full commitment to Tribal 
Nation sovereignty and self-determination.
    USET SPF, along with many Tribal Nations and organizations, has 
consistently urged that all federal programs and dollars be eligible 
for inclusion in self-governance contracts and compacts. We must move 
beyond piecemeal approaches directed at specific functions or programs 
and start ensuring Tribal Nations have real decisionmaking in the 
management of our own affairs and assets. It is imperative that Tribal 
Nations have the expanded authority to redesign additional federal 
programs to serve best our communities as well as have the authority to 
redistribute funds to administer services among different programs as 
necessary. To accomplish this requires a new framework and 
understanding that moves us further away from paternalism.
    Examinations into expanding Tribal self-governance administratively 
have encountered barriers due to the limiting language under current 
law, as well as the misperceptions of federal officials. USET SPF 
stresses to the Committee that if true expansion of self-governance is 
only possible through legislative action, the Committee and Congress 
must prioritize legislative action on the comprehensive expansion of 
Tribal self-governance. This will modernize the federal fiduciary 
obligation in a manner that is consistent with our sovereign status and 
capabilities. As an example, in 2013, the Self-Governance Tribal 
Federal Workgroup (SGTFW), established within the Department of Health 
and Human Services (HHS), completed a study exploring the feasibility 
of expanding Tribal self-governance into HHS programs beyond those of 
IHS and concluded that the expansion of self-governance to non-IHS 
programs was feasible, but would require Congressional action. However, 
despite efforts on the part of Tribal representatives to the SGTFW to 
attempt to move forward in good faith with consensus positions on 
expansion legislation, these efforts were stymied by the lack of 
cooperation by federal representatives. USET SPF urges the Committee 
and Congress to use its authority to work to legislatively expand 
Tribal self-governance to all federal programs where Tribal Nations are 
eligible for funding, in fulfillment of the unique federal trust 
responsibility to Tribal Nations.
    We expect several opportunities for SCIA to consider and support 
legislation that would advance Tribal self-governance and self-
determination this Congress. USET SPF strongly supports legislative 
proposals that would create a demonstration project at HHS aimed at 
expanding ISDEAA authority to more programs within the Department. In 
addition, a major priority for Tribal Nations during the upcoming 
reauthorization of the Special Diabetes Program for Indians (SDPI), 
along with increased funding and permanency for the program, is ISDEAA 
authority. Finally, as Congress drafts a reauthorization of the Farm 
Bill, we are seeking expanded ISDEAA authority at the U.S. Department 
of Agriculture.
    Furthermore, Congress and the Administration should consider 
modifications to reporting requirements under ISDEAA and other methods 
of funding distribution. The administrative burden of current reporting 
requirements under ISDEAA including site visits, ``means testing,'' or 
other standards developed unilaterally by Congress or federal officials 
are barriers to efficient self-governance and do not reflect our 
government-to-government relationship. While obtaining data around 
Tribal programs is critical to measuring how well we as Tribal 
governments are serving our citizens and how well the federal 
government is delivering upon its obligations, Tribal Nations find 
themselves expected to report data in order to justify further 
investment in Indian Country. This runs counter to the trust 
obligation, which exists in perpetuity. The data collected by Tribal 
Nations must be understood as a tool to be utilized in sovereign 
decisionmaking, not to validate the federal government's fulfillment of 
its own promises.
    USET SPF is working toward a future in which all federal dollars 
are eligible to be contracted or compacted under the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act. In the meantime, we urge 
Congress to ensure all federal Indian funding can be transferred 
between federal agencies, so that it may be received through contracts 
and compacts. We cite the unnecessary delays and barriers to the 
receipt of urgently needed COVID-19 relief funding as an example of why 
this authority must be confirmed, as well as a recent Government 
Accountability Office Report.
    Because funding for Tribal Nations is provided in fulfillment of 
clear legal and historic obligations, those federal dollars should not 
be subject to an inappropriate, grant-based mentality that does not 
properly reflect our diplomatic relationship. USET SPF notes that 
federal funding directed to foreign aid and other federal programs are 
not subject to the same scrutiny. Grant funding fails to reflect the 
unique nature of the federal trust obligation and Tribal Nations' 
sovereignty by treating Tribal Nations as non-profits rather than 
governments. We reiterate the need for the federal government to treat 
and respect Tribal Nations as sovereigns as it delivers upon the 
fiduciary trust obligation, as opposed to grantees.
Full and Mandatory Funding for Federal Trust and Treaty Obligations
    USET SPF celebrates and expresses its gratitude to this body for 
the historic achievement of advance appropriations for the Indian 
Health Service (IHS). For the very first time, the agency's clinical 
services will have budgetary certainty in the face of continuing 
resolutions and government shutdowns. It is our expectation that 
appropriators will continue to include language providing advance 
appropriations for IHS beyond Fiscal Year (FY) 2024. We urge the 
inclusion of all of IHS' budget line items in this mechanism, as well 
as advance appropriations for all federal Indian agencies and programs 
as next steps for this Congress. Despite its importance in the 
stabilization of funding, however, we continue to view advance 
appropriations as a temporary funding mechanism in our overall advocacy 
for the full delivery of trust and treaty obligations.
    Above all, the COVID-19 crisis has highlighted the urgent need to 
provide full and guaranteed federal funding to Tribal Nations in 
fulfillment of federal obligations. Because of our history and unique 
relationship with the United States, the federal government's trust and 
treaty obligations to Tribal Nations, as reflected in the federal 
budget, is fundamentally different from ordinary discretionary spending 
and should be considered mandatory in nature. Payments on debt to 
Indian Country should not be vulnerable to year to year 
``discretionary'' decisions by appropriators. Honoring the first 
promises made by this country, in pursuing the establishment of its 
great principled democratic experiment, should not be a discretionary 
decision.
    The Biden Administration's FY 2024 Request continues to propose a 
shift in funding for IHS from the discretionary to the mandatory side 
of the federal budget, including a 10-year plan to close funding gaps 
and an exemption from sequestration, a move that would provide even 
greater stability for the agency and is more representative of 
perpetual trust and treaty obligations. Year after year, USET SPF has 
urged multiple Administrations and Congresses to request and enact 
budgets that honor the unique, Nation-to-Nation relationship between 
Tribal Nations and the U.S.,
    including providing full and mandatory funding. While we firmly 
believe all Indian Country funding should be fully funded today, 
including the IHS, we continue to strongly support this proposal, 
recognizing that additional detail and planning is necessary to provide 
a fully developed plan to fund IHS on a full and mandatory basis. We 
look forward to working with IHS to draft legislation that reflects our 
guidance for implementing these changes.
    The FY 2024 Request also, once again, proposes mandatory funding 
for Contract Support Costs and 105(l) leases--binding obligations--at 
IHS, Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE). 
While we contend that all federal Indian agencies and programs should 
be subject to mandatory funding, in recognition of perpetual trust and 
treaty obligations, we continue to support the immediate transfer of 
these lines to the mandatory side of the federal budget. This will 
ensure that funding increases are able to be allocated to service 
delivery, as opposed to the federal government's legal obligations. The 
Senate Interior Appropriations Subcommittee ultimately supported these 
important first steps in achieving mandatory funding for Indian Country 
in its mark for FY 2023. We now call Congress to work with Tribal 
Nations and the Administration fulfill its responsibilities and work to 
ensure that this proposal is included in any final FY 2024 
appropriations legislation.
    Restrictive Settlement Acts As we work to ensure that Tribal 
sovereignty is fully upheld, we again remind this body that some Tribal 
Nations, including some USET SPF member Tribal Nations, are living 
under restrictive settlement acts that further limit the ability to 
exercise criminal and civil jurisdiction over our lands. These 
restrictive settlement acts flow from difficult circumstances in which 
states demanded unfair restrictions on Tribal Nations' rights in order 
for the Tribal Nations to have recognized rights to their lands or 
federal recognition. When Congress enacted these demands by the states 
into law, it incorrectly allowed for diminishment of certain sovereign 
authorities exercised by other Tribal Nations across the United States.
    Some restrictive settlement acts purport to limit Tribal Nations' 
jurisdiction over our land or give states jurisdiction over our lands, 
which is problematic. But, to make matters worse, there have been 
situations where a state has wrongly argued the existence of the 
restrictive settlement act. Some USET SPF member Tribal Nations report 
being threatened with lawsuits should they attempt to implement the 
Tribal Law and Order Act's (TLOA's) enhanced sentencing provisions. 
Congress is often unaware of these arguments when enacting new 
legislation. USET SPF asserts that Congress did not intend these land 
claim settlements to forever prevent a handful of Tribal Nations from 
taking advantage of beneficial laws meant to improve the health, 
general welfare, and safety of Tribal citizens. We continue to request 
the opportunity to explore short- and long-term solutions to this 
problem with this Committee.
Marshall Plan for Tribal Nations--Rebuild and Restore Tribal 
        Infrastructure
    For generations, the federal government--despite trust and treaty 
obligations--has substantially under-invested in Indian Country's 
infrastructure. While the United States faces crumbling infrastructure 
nationally, there are many in Indian Country who lack even basic 
infrastructure, such as running water and passable roads. The United 
States must commit to supporting the rebuilding of the sovereign Tribal 
Nations that exist within its domestic borders. Much like the U.S. 
investment in the rebuilding European nations following World War II 
via the Marshall Plan, the legislative and executive branches should 
commit to the same level of responsibility to assisting in the 
rebuilding of Tribal Nations, as our current circumstances are, in 
large part, directly attributable to the shameful acts and policies of 
the United States. In the same way the Marshall Plan acknowledged 
America's debt to European sovereigns and was utilized to strengthen 
our relationships and security abroad, the United States should make 
this strategic investment domestically. Strong Tribal Nations will 
result in a strengthened United States. At the same time, any 
infrastructure build-out, in Indian Country and beyond, must not occur 
at the expense of Tribal consultation, sovereignty, sacred sites, or 
public health.
Cultural Sovereignty
    While the practice of spiritual, ceremonial traditions, and beliefs 
varies significantly among USET SPF Tribal Nations, our spirituality is 
overwhelmingly place-based. From the Mississippi Band of Choctaw 
Indians' Nanih Waiyah mounds to the ceremonial stone landscapes of New 
England, each member Tribal Nation has specific places and locations 
that we consider sacred. These places are often the sites of our origin 
stories, our places of creation. As such, we believe that we have been 
in these places since time immemorial. Through these sites, we are 
inextricably linked to our spirituality, the practice of our religions, 
and to the foundations of our cultural beliefs and values. Our sacred 
sites are of greatest importance as they hold the bones and spirit of 
our ancestors and we must ensure their protection, as that is our 
sacred duty. As our federal partner in this unique government-to-
government relationship, it is also incumbent upon all branches of the 
U.S. government to ensure the protection of these sites, including by 
upholding our own sovereign action. As the federal government seeks to 
permit the explosion of infrastructure deployment authorized by 
recently enacted laws, this includes seeking the consent of Tribal 
Nations for federal actions that impact our sacred sites, lands, 
cultural resources, public health, or governance.
Restoration of Tribal Homelands
    Possession of a land base is a core aspect of sovereignty, cultural 
identity, and represents the foundation of a government's economy. That 
is no different for Tribal Nations. All federally recognized Tribal 
Nations are justly deserved of a strong, stable, sufficient land base--
a homeland--regardless of their historical circumstances, to support 
robust Tribal self-government, cultural preservation and economic 
development. USET SPF Tribal Nations continue to work to reacquire our 
homelands, which are fundamental to our existence as sovereign 
governments and our ability to thrive as vibrant, healthy, self-
sufficient communities.
    While USET SPF member Tribal Nations ultimately seek full 
jurisdiction and management over our homelands without federal 
government interference and oversight, we recognize the critical 
importance of the restoration of our land bases through the land-into-
trust process. We further recognize that the federal government, and 
not any other unit of government, has a trust responsibility and 
obligation to Tribal Nations in the establishment and management of 
trust lands. The federal government's objective in the execution of its 
trust and treaty obligations must be to support healthy and sustainable 
self-determining Tribal governments, which fundamentally includes the 
restoration of lands to all federally-recognized Tribal Nations, as 
well as the legal defense of these land acquisitions.
    In the wake of the previous Administration's unconscionable 
attempts to remove USET SPF member, the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe's, 
ancestral homelands from trust, we are strongly supportive of current 
efforts within the Department of the Interior to codify M-37029 and 
otherwise improve the federal fee-to-trust process. However, USET SPF 
continues to call for the immediate passage of a fix to the Supreme 
Court decision in Carcieri v. Salazar to ensure that Tribal Nations 
have true certainty in the restoration and status of our homelands.
Ensure Tribal Nation Economic Parity
    The federal government has a responsibility to ensure that federal 
tax law treats Tribal Nations in a manner consistent with our sovereign 
governmental status, as reflected under the U.S. Constitution and 
numerous federal laws, treaties, and federal court decisions. With this 
in mind, we remain focused on the advancement of tax reform that would 
address inequities in the tax code and eliminate state dual taxation. 
Revenue generated within Indian Country continues to be taken outside 
our borders or otherwise falls victim to a lack of parity. Similarly, 
Tribal governments continue to lack many of the same benefits and 
flexibility offered to other units of government under the tax code. 
This largely prevents Tribal Nations from achieving an economic 
multiplier effect, allowing for each dollar to turn over multiple times 
within a given Tribal economy. The failure of the federal government to 
recognize Tribal Nations in a manner consistent with our sovereign 
governmental status has hindered our efforts to rebuild and grow our 
economies.
    USET SPF continues to press Congress for changes to the U.S. tax 
code that would provide governmental parity and economic development to 
Tribal Nations. These efforts included support in previous Congresses 
for the Tribal Tax and Investment Reform Act. This bill specified the 
treatment of Tribal Nations as states with respect to bond issuance and 
modified the treatment of pension and employee benefit plans maintained 
by a Tribal Government. It also aimed to modify the treatment of Tribal 
foundations and charities, improve the effectiveness of Tribal child 
support enforcement agencies, and recognize Tribal governments for 
purposes of determining whether a child has special needs eligible for 
the adoption tax credit. USET SPF urges the Subcommittee to support 
similar legislative efforts in the 118th Congress to increase Tribal 
Nation economic parity.
Address Dual Taxation in Indian Country
    Dual taxation hinders Tribal Nations from achieving our own revenue 
generating potential. Although Tribal Nations have authority to tax 
noncitizens doing business in Indian Country, when other jurisdictions 
can tax those same noncitizens for the same transactions, Tribal 
Nations must lower their taxes to keep overall pricing at rates the 
market can bear or forgo levying a tax at all. The application of an 
outside government's tax often makes the Tribal tax economically 
unfeasible.
    Dual taxation undercuts the ability of Tribal Nations to offer tax 
incentives to encourage non-Indian business entities onto our lands to 
create jobs and stimulate Tribal economies. As long as outside 
governments tax non-Indian businesses on our lands-even if a Tribal 
government offers complete Tribal tax immunity to attract a new non-
Indian business--that business is subject to the same state tax rate 
that is applicable outside our jurisdictional boundaries. As a matter 
of economic fairness, we ask SIIA to work with us to support and 
advance initiatives that would bring certainty in tax jurisdiction to 
Tribal Lands by confirming the exclusive, sovereign authority of Tribal 
governments to assess taxes on all economic activities occurring within 
our jurisdictional boundaries.
Address Climate Change with Tribal Nations at the Table
    Because of where we are located, our members are facing an 
increasing number of climate change-related events, including heavy 
precipitation leading to subsequent flooding, erosion, and decreases in 
water quality. In addition, Tribal Nations located in coastal areas, 
including many USET SPF member Tribal Nations, are most at risk to 
impacts from sea level rise. In fulfillment of the trust obligation, 
the federal government has an inherent responsibility to ensure the 
protection of the environmental and cultural resources that support the 
health and wellness of Tribal
    communities, as well as to support Tribal sovereignty and self-
determination. Therefore, it is critical that Tribal Nations have 
access to the necessary resources to address the effects of climate 
change within our communities, including vastly increased and flexible 
funding for long-term Tribal climate change adaptation planning and 
mitigation. In addition, Tribal Nations must be included as full 
partners in broader plans, dialogue, and legislation in addressing the 
climate crisis, especially with regard to establishing policies 
supporting economic development with renewable energy.
Conclusion
    USET SPF calls upon SCIA and the 118th Congress to join us in 
working toward a legacy of change for Tribal Nations, Native people, 
and the sacred trust relationship. The COVID-19 pandemic has 
underscored the urgent need for radical transformation in the 
recognition of our governmental status and the delivery of federal 
obligations our people. We can no longer accept the status quo of 
incremental change that continues to feed a broken system. The federal 
government must enact policies that uphold our status as sovereign 
governments, our right to self-determination and self-governance, and 
honor the federal trust obligation in full. We look forward to 
partnering with this Committee in an effort to advance these policies 
in the coming months and years.

                                  [all]