U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

26–359 PDF 2017

EXAMINING FEDERAL PROGRAMS THAT SERVE 

TRIBES AND THEIR MEMBERS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

THE INTERIOR, ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FEBRUARY 15, 2017 

Serial No. 115–14 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

http://oversight.house.gov 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

Jason Chaffetz, Utah, Chairman 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Darrell E. Issa, California 

Jim Jordan, Ohio 

Mark Sanford, South Carolina 

Justin Amash, Michigan 

Paul A. Gosar, Arizona 

Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee 

Trey Gowdy, South Carolina 

Blake Farenthold, Texas 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Thomas Massie, Kentucky 

Mark Meadows, North Carolina 

Ron DeSantis, Florida 

Dennis A. Ross, Florida 

Mark Walker, North Carolina 

Rod Blum, Iowa 

Jody B. Hice, Georgia 

Steve Russell, Oklahoma 

Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin 

Will Hurd, Texas 

Gary J. Palmer, Alabama 

James Comer, Kentucky 

Paul Mitchell, Michigan 

Elijah E. Cummings, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

Carolyn B. Maloney, New York 

Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Columbia 

Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri 

Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts 

Jim Cooper, Tennessee 

Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia 

Robin L. Kelly, Illinois 

Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan 

Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey 

Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands 

Val Butler Demings, Florida 

Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois 

Jamie Raskin, Maryland 

Peter Welch, Vermont 

Matthew Cartwright, Pennsylvania 

Mark DeSaulnier, California 

JONATHAN SKLADANY, Majority Staff Director 

WILLIAM MCKENNA, General Counsel 

RYAN HAMBLETON, Senior Professional Staff Member 

SHARON CASEY, Deputy Chief Clerk 

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE INTERIOR, ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

Blake Farenthold, Texas, Chairman 

Paul A. Gosar, Arizona, Vice Chair 

Dennis A. Ross, Florida 

Gary J. Palmer, Alabama 

James Comer, Kentucky 

Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands 

Jamie Raskin, Maryland 

(Vacancy) 

(Vacancy) 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on February 15, 2017 ....................................................................... 1 

WITNESSES 

Mr. Frank Rusco, Director, Natural Resources and Environment, Energy and 

Science Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 4 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 7 

Ms. Mary Kendall, Deputy Inspector General, Office of Inspector General, 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 21 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 23 

The Hon. Tyson Thompson, Councilman, Southern Ute Indian Tribal Council 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 28 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 31 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(1) 

EXAMINING FEDERAL PROGRAMS THAT 

SERVE TRIBES AND THEIR MEMBERS 

Wednesday, February 15, 2017 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE INTERIOR, ENERGY AND

ENVIRONMENT

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:07 p.m., in Room 

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Blake Farenthold 

[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Farenthold, Gosar, Ross, Palmer, 

Comer, Chaffetz, Issa and Plaskett. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. The Subcommittee on Interior, Energy, and 

the Environment will come to order. 

Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess at 

any time. 

We appreciate your interest in this topic and welcome your participation today. 

We may be having some members from the full committee here 

today, so I’d like to ask for unanimous consent that all members 

of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform be allowed 

to fully participate in today’s hearing. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

And I’ll now recognize myself for 5 minutes for an opening statement. 

Today, the Subcommittee on Interior, Energy, and the Environment will examine obstacles that Native Americans face with respect to energy development, education, and health care on tribal 

land. 

The General Accounting Office and the Department of the Interior Inspector General have extensively documented the serious 

and troubling problems Native Americans face in these areas. 

Today, we’re going to try to do our part to bring attention to these 

issues by shining a little bit of light, congressional light and oversight on them. 

When it comes to energy development, tribes face costs and regulatory impediments that do not exist for development on non-tribal 

land. Obtaining a permit to drill on Native American land is more 

expensive and time consuming than doing so off tribal lands. Tribes 

must conduct detailed environmental assessments, obtain costly 

permits that not every tribe can afford. 

The Department of Interior attempted to address this by creating 

a special service center to streamline the regulatory process. HowVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:07 Aug 25, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\26359.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
2 

ever, three of the largest regulatory agencies, the Environmental 

Protection Agency, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Fish and 

Wildlife Service were not included in the service center. Omitting 

agencies that play such a large role in regulating the energy development undermines the Department’s effort to reduce the barriers 

to energy development on tribal land. 

As a result of these unnecessary impediments, valuable development opportunities are wasted and revenue is lost. For example, 

the Southern Ute Tribe represented here today in our hearing, has 

foregone almost $90 million in revenue waiting for Federal approval of right-of-way agreements. Energy resources represent a 

crucial way for many tribes to meet their budgetary obligations and 

provide needed services to their members. 

As for education, the Bureau of Indian Education, or BIE, has 

struggled to provide adequate school facilities for tribal children. 

Roughly 42,000 students attend schools administered by the BIE. 

Badly outdated schools are in disrepair and pose a major health 

and safety risk for students. Inconsistent inspections have contributed to deteriorating physical conditions of schools. Problems include asbestos, mold, roofing issues, and electrical danger. I think 

we have some slides here of some schools. 

As you can see here, we’ve got an upstairs room in a 1930s building that holds elementary classes at Tuba City Boarding School. 

This school, with this exposed wiring, is listed in good condition. 

Let’s go to the next slide. Now, I don’t know if you can make it 

out, but there’s some bleachers in there by that middle telephone 

pole. But they’ve actually put light posts in the middle of the athletic field there. Millions of dollars were spent on infrastructure improvements and we come up with this. 

Image three, we see thick walls of asbestos installation are left 

in one dormitory because the cost to move it is outrageous. 

Next slide. And we see structural cracks in the stairwell ceiling 

at another school. 

Next slide. Building space is needed for student activities. In this 

school, the building is being kept from being demolished despite 

the fact that snow comes into the building. That’s a pile of snow 

there under the door. 

Inadequate staff training contributes not only to inaccurate reporting of schools’ physical condition but also to the independent 

oversight of school expenditures. GAO has found that millions of 

dollars intended for Native American schools have been lost due to 

waste and misconduct. 

In one instance, over $1 million in Federal funds intended for a 

BIE school ended up improperly in a non-school-related offshore account. Despite the fact that BIE schools spend almost three times 

per student more than public schools, we have a serious problem. 

Similarly, the Indian Health Service agency, which serves the 

medical needs of roughly 2.2 million Native Americans, suffers 

from inadequate patient care. Patients often experience unreasonably long wait times, and high turnover rates of key personnel negatively impact the quality of care in services at IHS schools. 

Hopefully, today we can make some progress by highlighting the 

issues and discuss it with our panel and come up with some soluVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:07 Aug 25, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\26359.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
3 

tions. As the new administration takes office, this is a good time 

to hold these hearings. 

With that, I’d like to thank the witnesses for agreeing to be here 

today and provide testimony. 

At this point, I’d like to recognize our ranking member, the 

gentlelady from the Virgin Islands, Ms. Plaskett. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank the witnesses and all of the individuals who are here 

this afternoon about this very important issue. 

Mr. Chairman, this hearing that we’re having is critically important, and I want to thank you for holding this this early in the 

term. Tribal concerns are often underrepresented, and I’m glad 

that we’re dedicating a hearing to address these issues and finding 

solutions. 

The GAO high-risk report has outlined several problems that the 

tribal communities face in the areas of energy, health care, and 

education, as highlighted by the chairman for the education issues 

as well. The report highlights problems ranging from inadequate 

Federal oversight, limited Federal workforce planning, outdated 

and deteriorated equipment, technology, and infrastructure, and incomplete or inaccurate data. 

These shortcomings are creating significant difficulties for these 

tribal communities. Many tribal communities are heavily reliant on 

energy resources for their economic well-being and dependent upon 

the Bureau of Indian Affairs to conduct thorough but efficient reviews. 

But the GAO found that it took up to 8 years for the BIA to process permits, a delay which caused the Tribe to lose an estimated 

$95 million in revenues that it otherwise would have earned from 

tribal permitting fees, oil and gas severance taxes, and royalties. 

This represents an unacceptable financial burden on this community. And I have to tell you that I especially am very sympathetic 

and empathetic to these issues, coming from the Virgin Islands 

where we also feel the inadequate representation of the Federal 

Government and often feel forgotten, and the last person on the 

checklist of infrastructure and development, energy issues for our 

young people, and especially for our children. 

It’s absolutely unacceptable that children are expected to thrive 

and to be productive citizens under the conditions that they are 

now in. The fact that they have speaks to their resilience and the 

power and the wherewithal of your community to make that happen. 

GAO also found that similar delays plagued the Indian Health 

Service and the Bureau of Indian Education, preventing tribal 

members from receiving timely health care and making schools unsafe for children. In order to improve these Federal agencies, the 

Department of the Interior Office of the Inspector General must be 

able to adequately investigate these issues. 

However, I am very concerned that in this new administration, 

the hiring ban is going to severely compromise the ability of the IG 

and the IGs throughout the entire government to protect taxpayers 

from the type of mismanagement the GAO found. 

I am asking my Republican colleagues to join me in requesting 

that the President immediately lift the hiring ban so our IGs can 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
4 

have the resources and staffing they need to ensure the proper 

functioning of government and prevent waste, fraud, and abuse. 

I’m very much, Mr. Chairman, looking forward to hearing from 

our witnesses. And I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you very much. 

And I’ll hold the record open for 5 legislative days for members 

who would like to submit a written opening statement. 

I’d now like to recognize our panel of witnesses. 

I’m pleased to welcome Mr. Frank Rusco, director of national resources for environment—I’m sorry, let me get your title right. Director of Natural Resources Environment for energy and science 

issues at the U.S. Government Accountability Office. 

He’ll be accompanied and supported by Ms. Melissa EmreyArras, director of Education, Workforce, and Income Security, also 

at the GAO; and Kathleen King, director of Health Care at the 

GAO. Their expertise on this issue will be important for the subject 

matter of this hearing. So when we swear the witnesses in, we’ll 

ask that you be sworn in as well. 

Our other witnesses are Ms. Mary Kendall, Deputy Inspector 

General within the Office of Inspector General at the U.S. Department of Interior. Welcome. 

And finally, the Honorable Tyson Thompson, councilman with 

the Southern Ute Indian Tribe. Welcome to you all. 

Now, pursuant to committee rules, you will all be sworn in before 

you testify. Would you please rise and raise your right hand. 

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you’re about 

to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 

truth, so help you God? 

Let the record reflect all witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

You may be seated. 

In order to allow plenty of time for questions and discussion, we 

do have quite a few members here, we’d appreciate it if you’d limit 

your initial testimony to 5 minutes. We have copies of your entire 

written statement, which will be made part of the record. 

So Mr. Rusco, we’ll start off with you. You’re recognized for 5 

minutes. 

WITNESS STATEMENTS 

STATEMENT OF FRANK RUSCO 

Mr. RUSCO. Thank you. 

Chairman Farenthold, Ranking Member Plaskett, and members 

of the committee, it’s my pleasure to be here today to discuss the 

new area added to GAO’s high-risk list: Improving Federal management of programs that serve tribes and their members. We’re 

adding this high-risk area because we have found longstanding 

problems in the Federal management of Indian energy resources as 

well as the administration of Indian education and healthcare programs. 

The Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs has mismanaged Indian 

energy resources and the Federal role in energy development, and 

this has limited and delayed opportunities for tribes and their 

members to use those resources to create economic growth and improve the well-being of their communities. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
5 

In addition, we have found numerous challenges facing the Interior’s Bureau of Indian Education and BIA and the Department of 

Health and Human Services, Indian Health Services, in administering education and health care to tribes and their members. 

These shortcomings have put the health and safety of American Indians served by these programs at risk. 

As you know, the United States has recognized the sovereign status of tribes and currently recognizes 567 Indian tribes as distinct, 

independent political communities that possess certain powers of 

sovereignty and self-government. 

In 2016, Congress found in the Indian Trust Asset Reform Act 

that through treaties, statutes, and historical relations with Indian 

tribes, the United States has undertaken a unique trust responsibility to protect and support Indian tribes and Indians. These fiduciary responsibilities reflect commitments made in treaties and 

agreements under which Indians surrendered claims to vast tracks 

of land to the benefit of the people of the United States. This history has established enduring and enforceable Federal obligations 

to which the national honor has been committed. 

The remainder of my statement is focused on energy issues, but 

my colleagues, Melissa Emrey-Arras and Kathy King, are here to 

answer questions about education or healthcare issues as needed. 

Some tribes hold abundant energy resources, including coal, oil 

and gas, wind, solar, biomass, and hydroelectric resources. And 

some tribes and members have sought to develop these resources. 

While tribes and their members can determine how to use their 

energy resources, many of these resources are held in trust or a restricted status. In these cases, BIA must review and approve 

leases, permits, and other documents required for development. We 

have found deficiencies in BIA’s management of Indian energy resources in several areas. 

For example, BIA processes to issue leases, permits, rights-ofway, and appraisals often taking a long time to perform, and this 

has led to delays and missed opportunities for tribes and their 

members. As has been mentioned, in one case we reported that 

delays in rights-of-way for pipelines cost the Southern Ute Tribe 

about $95 million in foregone fees, severance taxes, and royalties 

over a period of 8 years. In another case, a 3-year review of a lease 

to develop wind power led to uncertainty about the viability of the 

project because the data that were used to support the economic 

feasibility and environmental impact of the project became too old 

to use. 

We have recommended that BIA develop and document clear 

processes to track review and response times so they can ensure 

that documents are moving in a timely and predictable fashion. 

BIA has also missed opportunities to streamline review and approval processes by not communicating and coordinating with other 

Federal agencies that have a role in these processes. Further, BIA 

has not used best practices to identify key staff needs to support 

energy development, and this has contributed to a situation where 

the Bureau does not have the right people with the right skills in 

the right place to enable energy development. 

BIA has also not invested comprehensively in GIS mapping technology required to easily identify resources available for lease as 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
6 

well as places where leases are already in force. In places without 

GIS capabilities, BIA has to rely on paper documents, which adds 

to review and approval times. 

Lastly, in some cases, BIA does not have accurate records of Indian land and resource ownership, another piece of information essential for reviewing and improving energy leases and ensuring 

tribes and their members get paid their share when energy production begins. 

We have made numerous recommendations to Interior and BIA 

to address these deficiencies, and we will be following the progress 

of the agency and Bureau in improving its delivery of services to 

tribes and their members. 

Thank you. This concludes my oral statement. I’ll be happy to 

answer any questions you may have. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Rusco follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
7 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 1 here 26359.001

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 2:00 p.m. ET Wednesday, February, 15, 2017 

GA0-17-434T 

United States Government Accountability Office 

Testimony 

Before the Subcommittee on the Interior, 

Energy, and Environment, Committee on 

Oversight and Government Reform, 

House of Representatives 

HIGH RISK 

Federal Management 

Challenges Related to 

Indian Energy Resources 

Statement of Statement of Frank Rusco, Director, Natural 

Resources and Environment 
8 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 2 here 26359.002

Chairman Farenthold, Ranking Member Plaskett, and Members of the 

Committee: 

I am pleased to be here today to discuss a new area we added to our 

High Risk List this year-Improving Federal Management of Programs 

that Serve Tribes and Their Members. 

We are adding this high-risk area in response to serious and longstanding problems in federal management of Indian energy resources 

and administration of Indian education and health care programs, which 

are highlighted in several of our prior reports, along with reports and 

testimony from Inspectors General, tribal nations, special commissions, 

and others. 1 In particular, we have found that the Department of the 

Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) has inefficiently managed Indian 

energy resources and the development process and thereby limited 

opportunities for tribes and their members to use those resources to 

create economic benefits and improve the well-being of their 

communtties. 2 In addition, we have found numerous challenges facing 

Interior's Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) and BIA' and the Department 

of Health and Human Services' (HHS) Indian Health Services (IHS) in 

administering education and health care services, which put the health 

1See, for example, GAO, Indian Energy Development: Poor Management by BIA Has 

Hindered Energy Development on Indian Lands, GA0-15-502 (Washington, D.C.: June 8, 

2015); Elizabeth Ann Kronk Warner, Tribal Renewable Energy Development Under The 

HEARTH Act: An Independently Rational, But Collectively Deficient, Option, 55 Ariz. L 

Rev. 1031, 1041 (2013): Department of the Interior, Report of the Commission on Indian 

Trust Administration and Reform, Approved December 10, 2013; Statement of Chairman 

Mark Fox, Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation, before the U.S. House of 

Representatives' Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Interior, Environment 

and Related Agencies, on American Indian/ Alaska Native Programs, March 24, 2015; 

Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of the Interior, Onshore Oll and Gas 

Permitting, U.S. Department of the Interior, CR-EV-MOA-0003-2013 (Washington, D.C.: 

June 2014). 

2For the purposes of this report, we use the term Indian energy resources to include 

energy resources that are held in trust by the United States for the benefit of tribes and 

their members. See GA0-15-502. 

3

Both of these bureaus are under the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs 

(Indian Affairs) 

Page 1 GA0·17-434T 
9 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 3 here 26359.003

and safety of American Indians served by these programs at risk. 4 For the 

purposes of this testimony, I will focus on our prior work related to Indian 

energy. 

As you know, the United States has recognized the sovereign status of 

tribes since its formation and currently recognizes 567 Indian tribes as 

distinct, independent political communities that possess certain powers of 

sovereignty and self-government. Some tribes and their members hold 

abundant energy resources and have decided to develop these resources 

to meet the needs of their community, in part because energy 

development provides opportunities to improve poor living conditions, 

decrease high levels of poverty, and fund public services for tribal 

members. While tribes and their members determine how to use their 

energy resources, if the resources are held in trust or restricted status, 

BIA-through its 12 regional offices, 85 agency offices, and other 

supporting offices--generally must review and approve leases, permits, 

and other documents required for development. 5 BIA's management of 

Indian energy resources and oversight of development is to be conducted 

pursuant to federal law, in a manner that is consistent with the federal 

government's fiduciary trust responsibility to federally recognized Indian 

tribes and their members. 

In 2016, Congress found in the Indian Trust Asset Reform Act that 

"through treaties, statutes, and historical relations with Indian tribes, the 

United States has undertaken a unique trust responsibility to protect and 

support Indian tribes and Indians."• As further stated in that act, the 

fiduciary responsibilities of the United States to Indians arise in part from 

4

See, for example, GAO, Indian Affairs: Key Actions Needed to Ensure Safety and Health 

at Indian School Facilities, GA0-16-313 (Washington, D.C .. March 10, 2016); GAO, 

Indian Affairs: Preliminary Results Show Continued Challenges to the Oversight and 

Support of Education Facilities, GA0-15-389T (Washington, D.C .. February 27, 2015); 

GAO, Indian Affairs: Better Management and Accountabl7ity Needed to Improve Indian 

Education, GA0-13-774 (Washington, D.C.: September 24, 2013); GAO, Indian Health 

Service: Actions Needed to Improve Oversight of Quality of Care, GA0-17-181 

(Washington, D.C.: January 9, 2017); and GAO, Indian Health Service: Actions Needed to 

Improve Oversight of Patient Wait Times, GA0-16-333 (Washington, D.C.: March 29, 

2016.) 

5

Trust resources are he!d for the beneficial interest of the tribe or a member, and restricted 

resources are owned by the tribe or a member but subject to restrictions on alienation. 

Trust and restricted resources generally cannot be leased without approval of the 

Secretary of the Interior, who has generally delegated this authority to BIA. 

6Pub. l. No. 114-178, § 101 (2016)(ccdilied at 25 U.S. C.§ 5601). 

Page 2 GA0-17 -434T 
10 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 4 here 26359.004

commitments made in treaties and agreements, under which Indians 

surrendered claims to vast tracts of land, and this history of federal-tribal 

relations and understandings has benefitted the people of the United 

States and established "enduring and enforceable [f)ederal obligations to 

which the national honor has been committed." Through improvements to 

federal management of programs that serve tribes and their members, 

agencies can improve the efficiency of federal programs under which 

services are provided to tribes and their members. This would be 

consistent with the expressed view of Congress as to the federal 

government's trust responsibilities, and strengthen confidence in the 

performance and accountability of our federal government. 

In this context, my testimony today primarily discusses the findings from 

three of our prior reports on Indian energy development.' Accordingly, this 

testimony identifies our findings about federal management of programs 

that serve tribes and their members concerning management and 

oversight of Indian energy resources and development. In addition, I will 

highlight several key actions that we recommended in those reports that 

federal agencies can take to help overcome challenges associated with 

the management of Indian energy resources. 

This statement draws on findings from reports issued from June 2015 

through November 2016. To conduct our prior work, we reviewed relevant 

laws, regulations, and policies; reviewed and analyzed federal data;' and 

interviewed tribal, federal, and industry officials, among others. More 

detailed information on our scope and methodology can be found in each 

of the three reports. 

We conducted the work on which this testimony is based in accordance 

with generally accepted government audfting standards. Those standards 

require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate 

evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions 

based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained 

7 GAO, Indian Energy Development: Additional Actions by Federal Agencies Are Needed 

to Overcome Factors Hindering Development, GA0-17-43 (Washington, D.C .. Nov 10, 

2016): Indian Energy Development: Interior Could Do More to Improve Its Process for 

Approving Revenue-Sharing Agreement, GA0-16-553 (Washington, D.C.: June 13, 2016); 

GA0-15-502. 

8

To assess the reliability of these data, we verified key dates and other information with 

relevant and knowledgeable officials. 

Page 3 GA0-17-434T 
11 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 5 here 26359.005

Management and 

Oversight of Indian 

Energy Resources 

and Development 

Oversight of BIAActivities 

provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on 

our audit objectives. 

In our prior work, we identified concerns associated with BIA 

management of energy resources and categorized them into the following 

broad areas: (1) oversight of BIA activities; (2) collaboration and 

communication; (3) BIA workforce planning; (4) technology; and (5) BIA's 

data. In the past 2 years, we issued three reports on Indian energy 

resources and development in which we made 14 recommendations to 

BIA. BIA agreed with most of these recommendations, and has identified 

steps it will take to address some of the recommendations. 

In a June 2015 report, we found that BIA review and approval is required 

throughout the development process, including the approval of leases, 

right-of-way (ROW) agreements, and appraisals. 9 However, BIA does not 

have a documented process or the data needed to track tts review and 

response times-such as data on the date documents are received, the 

date the review process is considered complete by the agency, and the 

date documents are approved or denied. 10 However, a few stakeholders 

we interviewed, including tribal and federal officials and industry 

representatives, and some ltterature we reviewed suggested that BIA's 

review and approval process can be lengthy and increase development 

costs and project development times, resutting in missed development 

opportunities, lost revenue, and jeopardized viability of projects." 

9A ROW is an authorization to a qualified individual, business, or government entity to use 

a specific area of land for a specific amount of time for a certain purpose and with certain 

restrictions. 

1

°For example, BIA approves seismic exploration permits for operators to identify oil and 

gas resources, maintains surface and mineral ownership records, identifies and verifies 

ownership of land and resources, and reviews and approves a number of energy-related 

documents-such as surface leases, mineral leases for the right to drill for oil and gas 

resources, and right-of-way agreements. GA0-15-502. 

11See, for example, Hearing on the Indian Tribal Energy and Self-Determination Act 

Amendments (S. 2132), 113th Gong. (Apri130, 2014). Statement of the Honorable James 

M. Olguin, Acting Chairman, Southern Ute Indian Tribal Council on behalf of the Southern 

Ute Indian Tribe; and Prepared statement of Hon. Nathan Small, Chairman, Fort Hall 

Business Council, Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. Strengthening Self-Sufficiency: Overcoming 

Barriers to Economic Development in Native Communities, Field Hearing Before the 

Committee on Indian Affairs, United States Senate 112th Cong. 1st sess. (Aug. 17, 2011). 

Page4 GA0-17434T 
12 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 6 here 26359.006

For example, in 2014, the Acting Chairman for the Southern Ute Indian 

Tribe reported that BIA's review of some of its energy-related documents 

took as long as 8 years. Specifically, as of April 30, 2014, the tribe had 

been waiting for at least 5 years for BIA to review 81 pipeline ROW 

agreements-11 of the 81 ROW applications had been under review for 8 

years. According to the tribal official, had these ROW agreements been 

approved in a timely manner, the tribe would have received revenue 

through various sources, including tribal permitting fees, oil and gas 

severance taxes, and royalties. The tribal official noted that, during the 

period of delay, prices for natural gas rose to an historic high but had 

since declined. Therefore, the official reported that much of the estimated 

$95 million in lost revenue would never be recovered by the tribe. 

In another example from our June 2015 report, one lease for a proposed 

utilny-scale wind project took BIA more than 3 years to review and 

approve and according to a tribal official, the lease was only reviewed and 

approved after multiple calls and letters from the tribe to BIA 

headquarters. According to a tribal official, the long review time 

contributed to uncertainty about the continued viability of the project 

because data used to support the economic feasibility and environmental 

impact of the project became too old to accurately reflect current 

conditions. 

We recommended in our June 2015 report that Interior direct BIA to 

develop a documented process to track fis review and response times. 

Interior agreed with the recommendation and stated it would try to 

implement a tracking and monitoring mechanism by the end of fiscal year 

2017 for oil and gas leases. However, Interior did not indicate whether it 

intends to track and monitor its review of other energy-related documents 

that must be approved before tribes can develop resources. Without 

comprehensively tracking and monitoring its review process, BIA cannot 

ensure that documents are moving forward in a timely manner, and 

lengthy review times may continue to contribute to lost revenue and 

missed development opportunities for Indian tribes. 

Further, in a June 2016 report, we found that BIA took steps starting in 

2015 to improve its process for reviewing revenue-sharing agreements 

but still had not established a systematic mechanism for monitoring or 

Page 5 
13 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 7 here 26359.007

Collaboration and 

Communication 

tracking." We recommended, among other things, that BIA develop a 

systematic mechanism for tracking these agreements through the review 

and approval process. Interior concurred with this recommendation and 

stated that BIA would develop such a mechanism and in the meantime 

would use a centralized tracking spreadsheet 

In June 2015, we reported that the added complexity of the federal 

process, which can include multiple regulatory agencies, prevents many 

developers from pursuing Indian energy resources for development 13 In a 

November 2016 report, we reported that Interior has recognized the need 

for collaboration in the regulatory process and described the creation of 

the Indian Energy Service Center as a center point of collaboration for 

permitting that will break down barriers between federal agencies. 14 We 

found that BIA had taken steps to form an Indian Energy Service Center 

that was intended to, among other things, help expedite the permitting 

process associated with Indian energy development We reported that the 

Service Center had the potential to increase collaboration between BIA 

and BLM on some permitting requirements associated with oil and gas 

development 15 However, we found that BIA did not coordinate with other 

key regulatory agencies, including Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service, the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Environmental Protection Agency. 

As a result, the Service Center was neither established as the central 

point for collaborating with all federal regulatory partners generally 

involved in energy development, nor did it serve as a single point of 

contact for permitting requirements. Without serving in these capacities, 

the Service Center was limited in its ability to improve efficiencies in the 

federal regulatory process. We also found that in forming the Service 

Center, BIA did not involve key stakeholders, such as the Department of 

Energy-an agency with significant energy expertise-and BIA 

12The federal government, tribes, Indian mineral owners, state governments, and private 

landowners can lease land to companies for the development of oil and gas resources. A 

revenue-sharing agreement, known as a communitization agreement-may be necessary 

for royalty allocation when federal or Indian leases are involved that cannot be 

independently developed. 

13GA0-15-502. 

14T estimony of lawrence S. Roberts, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Indian Affairs, 

Department of the Interior, before the Committee on Indian Affairs, United States Senate, 

on UThe GAO Report on Indian Energy Development Poor Management By BIA Has 

Hindered Development on Indian Lands" on October 21,2015. 

"GA0-17-43. 

Page 6 GA0·17-434T 
14 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 8 here 26359.008

BIA Workforce Planning 

employees from agency offices. By not involving key stakeholders, BIA 

was missing an opportunity to incorporate their expertise into its efforts. 

We recommended that BIA include other regulatory agencies in the 

Service Center so that it can act as a single point of contact or a lead 

agency to coordinate and navigate the regulatory process. We also 

recommended BIA establish formal agreements with key stakeholders, 

such as DOE, that identify the advisory or support role of the office, and 

establish a process for seeking and obtaining input from key 

stakeholders, such as BIA employees, on the Service Center activities. 

Interior agreed with our recommendations and described its plans to 

address them. 

In addition, in 2005, Congress provided an option for tribes to enter into 

an agreement with the Secretary of the Interior that allows the tribe, at its 

discretion, to enter into leases, business agreements, and ROW 

agreements for energy resource development on tribal lands without 

review and approval by the Secretary. However, in our June 2015 report, 

we found that uncertainties about Interior's regulations for implementing 

this option have contributed to deter tribes from pursuing such 

agreements. 16 We recommended that Interior provide clarifying guidance. 

In August 2015, Interior slated the department was considering further 

guidance. As of December 2016, however Interior had not provided 

additional guidance. 

In our June 2015 report, we found that BIA's long-standing workforce 

challenges, such as inadequate staff resources and staff at some offices 

without the skills needed to effectively review energy-related documents, 

were factors hindering Indian energy development." Further, in 

November 2016, we found that some BIA offices had high vacancy rates 

for key energy development positions, and some offices reported not 

having staff with key skills to review energy-related documents." For 

example, BIA agency officials in an area where tribes are considering 

developing wind farms told us that they would not feel comfortable 

approving proposed wind leases because their staff do not have the 

16See Tribal Energy Resource Agreements (TERA) as discussed in GA0·15~502. 

"GA0-15-502. 

"GA0-17-43. 

Page7 GA0-17oo434T 
15 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 9 here 26359.009

expertise to review such proposals. Consequently, these officials told us 

that they would send a proposed wind lease to higher ranking officials in 

the regional office for review. Similarly, an official from the regional office 

stated that they do not have the required expertise and would forward 

such a proposal to senior officials in Interior's Office of the Solicitor. The 

Director of BIA told us that BIA agency offices generally do not have the 

expertise to help tribes with solar and wind development because it is 

rare that such skills are needed. 

According to BIA officials, through the Indian Energy Service Center, BIA 

plans to hire numerous new staff over the next 2 years, which could 

resolve some of the long-standing workforce challenges that have 

hindered Indian energy development in the past However, BIA is hiring 

new staff without incorporating effective workforce planning principles. 

Specifically, BIA has not assessed key skills needed to fulfill its 

responsibilities related to energy development or identified skill gaps, and 

does not have a documented process to provide reasonable assurance 

its workforce composition at agency offices is consistent with its mission, 

goals, and tribal priorities. As a result, BIA cannot provide reasonable 

assurance it has the right people in place with the right skills to effectively 

meet its responsibilities or whether new staff will fill skill gaps. 

We recommended in our November 2016 report that BIA assess critical 

skills and competencies needed to fulfill its responsibilities related to 

energy development and identify potential gaps. We also recommended 

BIA establish a documented process for assessing BIA's workforce 

composition at agency offices taking into account BIA's mission, goals, 

and tribal priorities. Interior agreed with our recommendations and stated 

it was taking steps to implement them. 

In June 2015, we found that BIA did not have the necessary geographic 

information system (GIS) mapping data for identifying who owns and uses 

resources, such as existing leases. 19 Interior guidance states that efficient 

management of oil and gas resources relies, in part, on GIS mapping 

technology because it allows managers to easily identify resources 

available for lease and where leases are in effect According to a BIA 

official, without GIS data, the process of identifying transactions, such as 

leases and access agreements for Indian land and resources, can take 

"GA0-15-502. 

Page8 GA0·17-434T 
16 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 10 here 26359.010

Incomplete and Inaccurate 

Data 

significant time and staff resources to search paper records stored in 

multiple locations. 

We recommended BIA should take steps to improve its GIS capabilities to 

ensure it can verify ownership in a timely manner. Interior stated it will 

enhance mapping capabilities by developing a national dataset composed 

of all Indian land tracts and boundaries in the next 4 years. 

In June 2015, we found that BIA did not have the data it needs to verify 

who owns some Indian oil and gas resources or identify where leases are 

in effect.20 In some cases, BIA cannot verify ownership because federal 

cadastral surveys-the means by which land is defined, divided, traced, 

and recorded-cannot be found or are outdated. The ability to account for 

Indian resources would assist BIA in fulfilling its responsibilities, and 

determining ownership is a necessary step for BIA to approve leases and 

other energy-related documents. 

We recommended that Interior direct BIA to identify land survey needs. 

Interior agreed with the recommendation and stated it will develop a data 

collection tool to identify the extent of its survey needs in fiscal year 2016. 

As of December 2016, Interior had not provided information on the status 

of its efforts to develop a data collection tool. 

In conclusion, our reviews have identified a number of areas in which BIA 

could improve its management of Indian energy resources. Interior has 

stated that it intends to take some steps to implement our 

recommendations, and we will continue to monitor its efforts. We look 

forward to continuing to work with this committee in overseeing BIA, BIE, 

and IHS to ensure that they are operating in the most effective and 

efficient manner, consistent with the federal government's trust 

responsibilities, and working toward improving service to tribes and their 

members. 

Chairman Farenthold, Ranking Member Plaskett, and Members of the 

Committee, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to 

answer any questions that you may have at this time. 

"GA0-15-502. 

Page 9 
17 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 11 here 26359.011

GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgement 

{101665) 

If you or your staff members have any questions about this testimony, 

please contact me at (202) 512-3841 or ruscof@gao.gov. Contact points 

for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be 

found on the last page of this testimony. Christine Kehr (Assistant 

Director), Richard Burkard, and Jay Spaan made key contributions to this 

testimony. 

Page 10 GA0-17-434T 
18 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 12 here 26359.012

This is a work of the U.S- government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in Its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. 
19 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 13 here 26359.013

GAO's Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone 

Connect with GAO 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

Strategic Planning and 

External Liaison 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and investigative 

arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the 

federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public 

funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through GAO's website (http:/lwww.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, go to http://www.gao.gov 

and select "E-mail Updates." 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO's actual cost of production and 

distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether 

the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering 

information is posted on GAO's website, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TOO (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard, 

Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information. 

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Linkedln, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov and read The Watchblog. 

Contact: 

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnetlfraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov 

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Katherine Siggenud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400, 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125, 

Washington, DC 20548 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548 

James-Christian Blockwood, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202) 512-4707 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814, 

Washington, DC 20548 

. .,.,. 

... ~ 

Please Print on Recycled Paper. 
20 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 14 here 26359.014

hts 

HighHghts <>I GA0·114:l4T, a testimony befon:dhe SUbcommittee on the Interior, 

Energy, ~rut En\ll.,nment. Comm-on Oversight and Govemf{l&nt Reform! U.S. House of Representatives 

Why GAO Did This $tudy 

Indian !tibe& and tnelr membm hold 

considerable energy resources and 

may decida to use these. resources to 

provide economiC benefits and improlie 

the well-being of their commun~ies. 

However, according to a 20141ntertor 

document, these resources are 

underdeveloped l'ei.ative to surrounding 

non-Indian resources. Devetopment<>f 

Indian energy resources Is a complex 

process that may Involve federal, tribal, 

and state agencies .. Interior's s.IA has 

primary authOritY for managing Indian 

en....gy development and gene{alfy 

holds.final decision-making authority 

for leases, permits, and other 

approvals required fo(developmenj. 

GAO's 201 i biennial update to the 

high-risk prqgrem identifies federal 

management of programs that serve 

ltibas and their members as a new 

high risk aree needing attention by 

Congre<;S and the ex$lulive branoh . .' 

This testimony highlights the key 

findings of three prior GAO reports 

{GAD-15-502, GA0-16-553, andGA0-

1743).1!focus~ primarily on SIA's 

managementof Indian energy 

resources and development For ihe 

prior reports, GAO analyzed federal 

data: reviewed federal, academic, and 

other 1nerature; 'lJld intllfVIewed tribal, 

federal and industry stakeholders. 

What GAO Recommends 

In !fie past 2 years, GAO issued 3 

reports and made 14 

recommendatio~s to SIA to improvl! its 

management of Indian energy 

resources, suoh as to treck its review 

process; improve collaboretion, and 

conduct workforce planning. SIA 

agreed with most recommendations 

and identified same steps ft intends to 

take to imPlement theni. 

ViewGAQ .. f1-434f. f'ormom fnfoll!lation_, contactFillllk Ruseo at (202)512-31\41 or ruscof@g~o.gov 

HIGH RISK 

Federal Management Challenges Related to Indian 

Energy Resources 

What GAO Found 

In its three prior reports on Indian energy development, GAO found that the 

Department of the Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) has inefficiently 

managed Indian energy resources and the development process and thereby 

limited opportunities for tribes and their members to use those resources to 

create economic benefits and improve the well-being of their communities. GAO 

has also reported numerous challenges facing Interior's Bureau of Indian 

Education and BIA and the Department of Health and Human Services' Indian 

Health Services in administering education and health care services, which put 

the health and safety of American Indians served by these programs at risk. For 

the purposes of this testimony, GAO is focusing on the concerns related to 

Indian energy. 

GAO categorized concerns associated with BIA management of energy 

resources and the development process into several broad areas, including 

oversight of BIA activities, collaboration, and BIA workforce planning. 

Oversight of BIA activities. In a June 2015 report, GAO found that SIA 

review and approval is required throughout the development process. 

However, BIA does not have a documented process or the data needed to 

track its review and response times-such as data on the date documents 

are received, the date the review process is considered complete, and the 

date documents are approved or denied. GAO recommended that BIA 

develop a documented process to track its review and response times. 

Interior generally agreed and stated it would try to implement a tracking and 

monitoring mechanism by the end of fiscal year 2017 for oil and gas leases. 

Interior did not indicate whether it intends to track and monitor its review of 

other energy-related documents that must be approved before tribes can 

develop resources. 

Collaboration. In a November 2016 report, GAO found that BIA has taken 

steps to form an Indian Energy Service Center that is intended to, among 

other things. help expedite the permitting process associated with Indian 

energy development However, BIA did not coordinate with key regulatory 

agencies, including Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service, the Environmental 

Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. GAO 

recommended that BIA include other regulatory agencies in the Service 

Center so that it can act as a single point of contact or lead agency to 

coordinate and navigate the regulatory process. Interior agreed with our 

related recommendation and described plans to address it 

SIA workforce planning. In June 2015 and in November 2016, GAO 

reported concerns associated with BIA's long-standing workforce challenges, 

such as inadequate staff resources and staff at some offices without the skills 

needed to effectively review energy-related documents. GAO recommended 

that BIA assess critical skills and competencies needed to fulfill its 

responsibilities related to energy development and establish a documented 

process for assessing SIA's workforce composition at agency offices. Interior 

agreed with our recommendations and stated it is taking steps to implement 

them. 

-------------United States Government Accountability Office 
21 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Kendall, you’re now recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MARY KENDALL 

Ms. KENDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, ranking member, 

members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the invitation to testify today about the conditions of Indian country as it relates to 

DOI’s responsibilities to American Indians. 

As you know, DOI’s mission includes fulfilling trust responsibilities to American Indians. Fulfilling these responsibilities is consistently a top management challenge for DOI. Through the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Bureau of Indian Education, the Department provides services to 567 federally recognized tribes with 

a population of about 1.9 million American Indians and Alaska natives, and provides education services to about 42,000 Indian students in 183 schools. 

DOI funds Indian country programs that provide social services, 

law enforcement and detention services, tribal justice systems, 

housing assistance, repair and maintenance of schools, roads, and 

bridges, and economic development programs in some of the most 

isolated and economically depressed areas in the United States. 

For many years, the Office of Inspector General has reported 

that BIA and BIE are failing to meet the responsibilities to American Indians on many fronts. I will focus my comments today on 

the challenges facing Indian schools. Specifically, substantial work 

is needed to improve the Indian education system, particularly in 

creating environments where children are safe and have adequate 

means to learn. 

In May 2015 testimony, BIE leadership acknowledged that they 

faced unique and urgent challenges in providing a high-quality 

education to Indian students attending BIE schools. They attributed these challenges in part to difficulty in attracting effective 

teachers, difficulty in adopting research-based reforms, ongoing organizational and budgetary restructuring efforts, and inconsistent 

BIE leadership. 

A high-quality education is also hampered by crumbling school 

infrastructure and limited broadband internet access. All of these 

challenges contribute to low graduation rates for native students. 

Nationally, the American Indian Alaska native high school graduation rate is 69 percent, below the average national of 81 percent. 

BIE’s 2014 blueprint for reform recommended a shift in the Bureau’s role from direct provider of education to one of a capacity 

builder and service provider to the tribes that run their own 

schools. According to the blueprint, greater tribal control of schools 

promotes self-governance and self-determination, giving tribes 

more power to engage children, infuse schools with tribal cultural 

values and native languages, and improve educational outcomes. 

BIE’s goal is commendable, but this vision probably requires more 

technical and financial assistance for tribes than BIE can presently 

provide. 

To address some of these complex challenges, DOI’s fiscal year 

2027 budget request proposes $1 billion to sport a comprehensive 

redesign and reform of BIE. But to effectively use its Federal fundVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:07 Aug 25, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\26359.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
22 

ing in addressing these challenges, BIE needs to improve both its 

execution and its oversight of school expenditures. 

What I fear gets lost in reports such as those issued by GAO and 

the OIG on Indian country is the impact that the conditions we report on has on real human lives. The young people in Indian country who are dependent upon the schools that BIA operates or oversees are profoundly affected by attending schools with crumbling 

infrastructure, schools that have wholly inadequate physical safety 

measures, and schools that are not equipped to prevent or respond 

to violence or other emergency situations. 

This concludes my prepared remarks, and I am happy to answer 

any questions that members of the subcommittee may have. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Kendall follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
23 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 15 here 26359.015

TESTIMONY OF MARY L. KENDALL, DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR THEDEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

BEFORE THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE INTERIOR, ENERGY, AND ENVIRONMENT 

FEBRUARY 15, 2017 

Mr. Chainnan, and members of the Subcommittee, good afternoon. Thank you for the invitation 

to testifY on behalf of the Office oflnspector General (OIG) for the Department of the Interior 

(DOl) today about the condition oflndian Country as it relates to the Department's 

responsibilities to American Indians. 

As you know, DOl's mission includes fulfilling trust responsibilities or special commitments to 

American Indians. Fulfilling responsibility to American Indians is consistently a top 

management challenge for DOL Through the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Bureau of 

Indian Education (BIE), DOl provides services to 567 federally recognized tribes with a 

population of about 1.9 million American Indian and Alaska Natives, has trust responsibilities 

for 55 million surface acres and 57 million acres of subsurface mineral estates, and provides 

education services to about 42,000 Indian students in 183 schools and donnitories. DOl funds 

Indian Country programs that provide social services, law enforcement and detention services, 

tribal justice systems, housing assistance, repair and maintenance of roads and bridges, and 

economic development programs in some of the most isolated and economically depressed areas 

of the United States. 

OIG findings have highlighted the same or similar issues for many years. Specifically, 

substantial work is needed to improve the Indian education system, particularly in creating 

environments where children are safe and have adequate means to thrive. In addition, tribal 

operations have longstanding deficiencies in records management and inadequate policies and 

procedures, which continue to hinder their accountability when handling public funds. BIA 

continues to struggle to develop and retain crucial personnel, which reduces the effectiveness of 

key programs. Issues persist within the BIA detention system as safety measures have continued 

to be ignored or overlooked. Overall failures in the management of various responsibilities 

entrusted to BIA compound these findings, making it difficult for BIA to achieve its mission 

goals. 

Management of Contracts and Grants 

DOl awarded more than $2.1 billion in contracts, grants, and other financial assistance to Indian 

Country during FY 2016. Historically, single audits and OIG audits have identified severe 

deficiencies and material weaknesses in the capacity of tribes to effectively manage taxpayer 

funds. DOl-funded programs and operations in Indian Country are susceptible to fraud, waste, 

mismanagement, and abuse, due in part to the absence of spending oversight and insufficient 

procurement resources. 

Tribes receive funding from a number of Government agencies in addition to BIA, such as DOl's 

Bureau ofReclamation, and the Departments of Health and Human Services, Transportation, and 

Education. BIA regional and agency staff are responsible for oversight of these funds. Examples 
24 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 16 here 26359.016

of inadequate oversight by BIA staff of tribal use of Government funds include inaccurate 

documentation filed by tribes to certify how they are spending funds and BIA's failure to review 

single audits submitted by tribes. BIA and BlE are also challenged by a limited number of 

warranted contracting officers and contracting officer's representatives, who are responsible for 

monitoring and overseeing contracts. 

Land Buy-Back Program 

Across Indian Country, more than 245,000 owners of3 million fractionated interests, spanning 

about 150 Indian reservations, are eligible to participate in the Land Buy-Back Program. The 

program was created to implement the land consolidation component of the Cabell v. Salazar 

settlement, which provided $1.9 billion to consolidate fractionated land interests across Indian 

Country within a I 0-year period, which ends in November 2022. 

Land fractionation is a serious problem throughout Indian Country. As lands are passed down 

through generations, they gain more owners. Many tracts now have hundreds and in some cases 

thousands of individual owners. It can be challenging to obtain the required approvals for leases 

or other uses of such lands. As a result, many highly fractionated tracts are unoccupied and 

unavailable for any beneficial purpose, which hinders tribal communities' process of selfdetermination and impedes DOl in fulfilling its trust responsibilities to American Indians. 

To date, the Land Buy-Back Program has paid more than $740 million to individual landowners 

and restored the equivalent of nearly 1.5 million acres of land to tribal governments. DOl has 

entered into agreements with 31 tribal nations to cooperatively implement the Land Buy-Back 

Program. DOl has identified 42 locations where land consolidation activities such as planning, 

outreach, mapping, mineral evaluations, appraisals, or acquisitions are expected to take place 

through the middle of2017. These communities represent 83 percent of all outstanding fractional 

interests across Indian Country. 

DOl faces several challenges in its effort to consolidate all land fractionation interests across 

Indian Country. Among these challenges are a dependence on coordination with other programs 

and agencies, and the sensitivity surrounding acquisition of Indian lands by the Federal 

Government. The breadth and scale of the task, limited funding, and the bounded lifespan 

established for the program are further major challenges to DOl's Land Buy-Back Program. 

Indian Country Schools 

In a May 2015 statement before the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, BIE leadership 

acknowledged that their Bureau faces unique and urgent challenges in providing a high-quality 

education to Indian students attending BIE schools. They attributed these challenges to--

difficulty in attracting effective teachers to BIE schools; 

difficulty in adopting research-based reforms at BIE schools; 

no access to certain programs that are designed, through funding opportunities, to build 

State educational agency and local educational agency capacity 

ongoing organizational and budgetary restructuring efforts; and 

inconsistent BIE leadership (the Bureau has had 33 directors since 1979). 
25 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 17 here 26359.017

A high-quality education is also hampered by crumbling school infrastructure and limited 

broadband Internet access. Some of the major facility deficiencies and health and safety concerns 

that we found incudes: 

asbestos, radon, and mold; 

structural concerns and condemned buildings' 

electrical issues' 

grounds and drainage problems; 

damaged and deteriorated roofs' 

plumbing, corrosion, and moisture damage; 

reliance on temporary structures as permanent solutions; and 

problems with fire safety systems. 

All of these challenges contribute to low graduation rates for Native students. Nationally, the 

American Indian/Alaskan Native high school graduation rate is 69 percent, below the national 

average of 81 percent. 

Moreover, DOl is failing to collect comprehensive and accurate information on school safety and 

health conditions at all BIE schools, and failing to provide schools with support in addressing 

deficiencies identified in annual safety reports. Conducting thorough annual inspections at all 

BIE schools is essential for protecting the safety and health of students. 

BIE's planned restructuring, outlined in the 2014 "Blueprint for Reform," recommended a shift 

in BIE's role from direct provider of education into a capacity-builder and service-provider to 

tribes that run their own schools. According to the Blueprint, greater tribal control of schools 

promotes self-governance and self-determination, giving tribes more power to engage children, 

infuse schools with tribal cultural values and native languages, and improve educational 

outcomes. BIE's goal is commendable, but the transition may require more technical and 

financial assistance for tribes than BIE can provide. Moreover, in order to make this transition 

successful and to ensure that funds are spent effectively, tribes need to have the capacity to run 

their own schools. 

To address some ofthese complex challenges, DOl's FY 2016 budget included $45 million for 

school construction projects and funding for a public-private partnership to provide more than 

1,000 American Indian students nationwide with improved access to digital technology in their 

classrooms and dorms. In addition, the FY 2017 budget request proposes $1 billion to support a 

comprehensive redesign and reform ofBIE, including $138 million to improve facility 

conditions and $25 million to extend broadband Internet and computer access at BIE-funded 

schools and dormitories. 

To effectively use its Federal funding in addressing these challenges, BIE needs to improve its 

oversight of school expenditures. In a 2014 report, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 

stated that BIE continues to be challenged with the development of process documents that detail 

how BIE oversees expenditures for major programs. BIE also needs to develop procedures that 

detail the requirements for consistent documentation of monitoring activities and remediation 

actions to resolve financial weaknesses identified at schools. 
26 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 18 here 26359.018

Energy Development and Management on Tribal Lands 

Indian Country energy resources are underdeveloped relative to surrounding non-Indian 

resources, but have significant potential. BIA has primary authority for managing Indian energy 

development and generally holds final decision-making authority for leases and other permits 

required for development. Indian-owned oil and gas resources are one of the largest revenue 

generators in Indian Country, with royalty income of$826 million in 2015. 

In 2015, GAO identified BIA "management shortcomings" as a major hindrance to energy 

development in Indian Country. Management shortcomings, coupled with a complex regulatory 

framework, limited capital and infrastructure, and varied tribal capacity to address issues, can 

lead to lost revenue for American Indians. GAO recommended that DOl take steps to address 

data limitations, track its review process, and provide clarifying guidance, among other actions to 

improve energy development and management on tribal lands. In 2016, GAO pointed out that 

BIA is also faced with an extensive backlog, in part due to inadequate staffing and a complicated 

review and approval process for Indian oil and gas revenue-sharing agreements, known as 

communitization agreements. In July and August 2015, DOl issued guidance intended to 

streamline the review process and reduce the approval times administered by BLM and BIA. 

GAO expressed concern that the guidance did not provide sufficient approval timeframes, 

systematic methods to track the Federal review process on these agreements, or a robust plan to 

evaluate the effects of such guidance on timely review. 

Among the tools available for promoting energy and resource development in Indian Country are 

tribal energy resource agreements (TERAs), which aim to promote tribal oversight and 

management of energy and mineral resource development on tribal lands and to further the goal 

of self-determination. Federal policy allows for interested tribes to pursue TERAs, which would 

enable tribes to develop energy-related business agreements, award leases, and grant rights-ofway for energy facilities without having to obtain further approval from the Secretary of the 

Interior. Although TERAs create an avenue for tribal-directed energy and resource development, 

according to GAO testimony before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs in 2015 and an OIG 

report issued a year later, no tribe has entered into a TERA. This is due in part to the complexity 

ofTERA regulations; thus TERA has not proved a viable option for tribes. 

BIA is attempting to improve energy management shortcomings, as GAO recommended, by 

developing processes to track review and response times for energy-related documents and 

collect relevant data. BlA has set a goal to implement a tracking and monitoring mechanism for 

oil and gas leases by the end ofFY 2017. Ensuring efficiency, effectiveness, and transparency in 

the handling of energy-related documents should improve BIA 's ability to appropriately develop 

Indian energy resources. 

In FY 2016, DOl received initial funding to establish an Indian Energy Service Center, to 

expedite the leasing, permitting, and reporting for conventional and renewable energy. By 

instituting streamlined processes, standardized procedures, and best practices for all types of 

energy transactions, the center intends to remediate backlogs and provide expedient energyrelated services and support to tribes nationwide. The creation of this center can also improve 

cross-bureau communication among the BIA regional offices, the BLM field and State offices, 
27 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 19 here 26359.019

and the Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians' fiduciary trust officers and regional 

trust administrators. Once this center is operational, DOl will need to conduct regularly 

scheduled assessments to ensure it is efficiently and effectively mitigating the issues it was 

designed to address. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I would be happy to answer any questions that 

members of this Subcommittee may have. 
28 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you. You’re all doing very well on the 

clock. 

Mr. Thompson, can you keep up the trend? 

Mr. THOMPSON. I’ll do my best. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. You need to turn your microphone on and get 

real close to it. These are kind of very not sensitive microphones. 

They want you to be real close. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Sounds good. Awesome. 

Thank you, Chairman Farenthold, Ranking Member Plaskett, 

and honorable members of the subcommittee. Thanks for having us 

here today. 

STATEMENT OF TYSON THOMPSON 

My name is Tyson Thompson, councilman for the Southern Ute 

Indian Tribe, and, again, it is an honor to be here. Our reservation 

is located in southwest Colorado, chipped away through the years 

and years of Federal demands to a section that’s about 15 by 75 

miles, just a strip in the bottom. 

We began to develop oil and gas in our reservation in the 1940s, 

and since then we have been taking greater and greater control of 

our mineral resources and destiny. Some examples of this are collecting nearly $1 billion in revenue since we enacted a severance 

tax in 1982. 

In 1992, our tribe started Red Willow Production Company, 

which operates wells on and off the reservation and is wholly 

owned by the Southern Ute Indian Tribe. In 1994, our tribe 

partnered to create Red Cedar Gathering Company to provide gathering and treating services on the reservation. 

Less than 50 years ago, the Tribe could no longer make per capita payments to our members, but with strong vision of our past 

leaders, internal expertise, informed decisions, and planning for the 

future, we have come a long way since then. Today, we conduct oil 

and gas activities in ten States, and we are the largest employer 

of the Four Corners region of southwest Colorado. 

Our success allows our tribe to provide many services to our people, including great health insurance, as well as give a college education to any of our members that wish it. We are the only tribe 

in the Nation with a AAA credit rating from Standard & Poor’s. 

About 30 percent of the Tribe’s income comes from energy development on the reservation. 

There is no question that energy development has put the Tribe, 

our membership, as well as the surrounding community on a more 

stable economic footing. We could tell you firsthand that Federal 

oversight often impedes tribal self-determination. For example, the 

BLM issues drilling permits on tribal lands, which can take 4 to 

6 months and cost $9,500. The State of Colorado, though, can issue 

drilling permits on private lands typically within 45 days, and it’s 

free. No wonder oil and gas companies would rather drill on private 

lands. 

And unfortunately, our reservation is checkerboarded. If you’re 

not familiar with a checkerboard status of the reservation, it’s not 

unlike this table where the brown color is the entire reservation. 

Everything you see on top of this table would be trust land. So an 

operator can go across the fence and have a different set of regulaVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:07 Aug 25, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\26359.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
29 

tions and still be within the exterior boundaries of the reservation 

and be utilizing that same resource that’s underground. 

Willing and able tribes should be allowed greater authority over 

energy development on tribal lands. We have shown time and time 

again that we can complete major projects quickly and effectively. 

Federal agencies have often hindered or flat out refused our efforts 

to assist in carrying out these functions, or their functions, rather. 

In 2014, Office of Trust Review and Audit report was found that 

the BIA mishandled the Tribe’s historical records at the Southern 

Ute Agency. The Southern Ute Indian Tribe made countless offers 

to assist the BIA in solving this problem, and after many months, 

our tribe was finally authorized to enter into a 638 contract, allowing the Tribe to scan and organize our historic files at the agency 

while using $1 million of our own funding as well as our own staff. 

The Tribe has also streamlined the process of approving, in a single transaction, all right-of-way renewals that an operator has on 

the reservation. At times, this number is in the hundreds. This approach allows the tribes to easily monitor expiration dates and negotiate renewals, including holding operators accountable to environmental concerns. 

When the Tribe presented one of these rights-of-way packages to 

the Southern Ute Agency for approval, it took the Agency nearly 

4 years to approve the package. There was no way for the Agency 

to enter this transaction and its information into the department’s 

land management system, which they call the TAAMS. 

To overcome the problems at the BIA realty function, the Tribe 

created its own GIS system, known as the land information management system. Our system allows the Tribe to scan realty 

records into our database where each document is linked to a location on a map, very similar to Google Maps. When you’re looking 

for a store and you click on the store, it tells you the hours and 

the dates and the times that they’re open. And we would be happy 

to give the demonstration of the system to the committee at your 

convenience. 

The BIA does not have the data resources, staffing, or IT capabilities to meet the Tribe’s needs or the other capable tribes’ needs 

for that matter. We have the capability, and more importantly, we 

have the incentive to improve the situation. 

There is not a one-size-fits-all solution for tribes. Some solutions 

aren’t expensive, though. Congress needs to approve legislation to 

allow tribes the choice to take on more responsibility. Federal positions need to be advertised locally so local people who already live 

in the area can apply for them. There needs to be a cost-of-living 

adjustment for our area to entice people to work there. And the 

BIA needs to stop arbitrarily choosing when they’ll exercise trust 

responsibility. 

The BIA abandoned the trust responsibility to protect and organize the Tribe’s priceless records but then cited their trust responsibility when they required Southern Ute Agency and the Tribe to 

use Federal funds to require tribal employees to drive 160 miles to 

be fingerprinted, have a photo taken, undergo an hour-long interview with the OPM contract investigator before being allowed to 

work in the office. Those are simple solutions and not too expensive 

to take on to change that. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
30 

To follow up, the Southern Ute Tribe is well equipped, as we 

said, and to responsibly develop its own energy resources safely 

and effectively. We do appreciate the efforts of this subcommittee, 

as well as GAO’s office and OIG’s office, to help find solutions to 

the problems that we experience on a day-to-day. 

Again, thank you for the invitation to appear before you, and I’m 

happy to answer any questions. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
31 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 20 here 26359.020

BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE INTERIOR, ENERGY, AND ENVIRONMENT 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

Prepared Statement of Honorable Tyson Thompson 

Councilman, Southern Ute Indian Tribal Council 

On behalf of the 

SOUTHERN UTE INDIAN TRIBE 

Hearing 

"Examinin9 Federal Proarams that Serve Tribes and Their Members." 

February 15,2017,2:00 p.m. 

Rayburn House Office Building 

I. Introduction. 

Good afternoon, Chairman Farenthold, Ranking Member Plaskett, and Members of the 

Subcommittee. My name is Tyson Thompson. I am an elected member of the Southern Ute Indian 

Tribal Council, which is the governing body of the Southern Ute Indian Tribe (Tribe). Thank you for 

the opportunity to provide a statement on behalf of the Tribe regarding our experiences as they relate 

to recent studies and analyses conducted by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the 

Department of the Interior Office of Inspector General (OIG) on the management of federal 

programs that serve tribes and their members. 

The Tribe has extensive experience with the federal government's, and particularly the Bureau 

of Indian Affairs', shortcomings with respect to Indian Energy Development. On several occasions, 

we have shared our stories with the GAO and with the OIG regarding Bureau oflndian Affairs (BIA) 

mismanagement of tribal energy resources and have assisted those agencies in identifying significant 

problems and potential solutions. Considering our experiences with the BIA and the conclusions 

reached in recent OIG and GAO studies and analyses on the management of federal programs that 

serve tribes, we are optimistic that this Congress, and this Subcommittee, is interested in this area of 

concern. Thank you for taking these reports and analyses seriously and for allowing the Tribe to 

share with you stories of our experience. 

Pagelof9 
32 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 21 here 26359.021

The Tribe, which comprises just over I ,500 members, is a leader in Indian Country with a 

demonstrated and sterling record offoresight and business acumen. The Tribe is the only Indian tribe 

in the nation with an AAA + credit rating, which was earned through years of steady governance and 

successful and prudent business transactions. Though the Tribe has a diversified portfolio, energy 

development remains a key component of the Tribe's strategy, with approximately thirty percent of 

the Tribe's income coming from energy development. Accordingly, we are well positioned to speak 

to the relationship between energy development, prosperity, and tribal self-determination. 

The Southern Ute Indian Reservation consists of approximately 700,000 acres ofland located in 

southwestern Colorado. Approximately 311,000 acres of the Reservation is held in trust by the 

federal government for the benefit of the Tribe. As a result of the complex history of the Reservation, 

the Tribe also owns severed oil and gas minerals and coal estates that are held in trust by the United 

States on additional portions of the Reservation. Federal regulations require federal review and 

approval of even the most basic realty transaction occurring on lands and minerals held in trust for 

the Tribe on the Reservation. Because the federal role in tribal energy development has not always 

served or protected the Tribe's best interests, the Tribe learned early on that if it wanted something 

done correctly, it often just needed to do the work itself. This is an exercise of the Tribe's selfdetermination; the Tribe develops internal expertise, makes informed decisions about how and when 

mineral resources on the Reservation should be developed, and then assists the federal government 

to perform the federal government's role. In instances where the Tribe recognizes that it could do a 

better job than a federal agency (royalty accounting is a good example), the Tribe may choose to 

enter into a contract under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act ("PL 93-638 

contract"), which allows the Tribe to do the federal agency's work with the federal funding that 

would have gone to the federal agency to do that job. Choosing to pursue a PL 93-638 contract is 

one way to exercise tribal self-determination and help address the problem of understaffed and 

undertrained federal agencies bogging down tribal energy development decisions, but there are other 

solutions to this problem, such as modifying federal regulations, improving the system for hiring and 

training federal employees, and aHowing tribes that choose to do so to take on a greater role in 

processing realty transactions. 

II. Careful Planning Led the Southern Ute Indian Tribe to Become the Premier 

Indian Energy Developer in the United States. 

The Tribe is a great example of the positive impacts of Indian energy development. Our 

Reservation is part of the San Juan Basin, which has been a prolific source of oil and natural gas 

production since the 1940s. Beginning in 1949, the Tribe began issuing leases under the supervision 

of the Secretary of the Interior. For several decades, we remained the recipients of modest royalty 

revenue, but were not engaged in any comprehensive resource management planning. That changed 

in the 1970s as we and other energy resource tribes in the West recognized the potential importance 

Page 2 of9 
33 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 22 here 26359.022

of monitoring oil and gas companies for lease compliance and keeping a watchful eye on the federal 

agencies charged with managing our resources. In 1974 the Tribal Council placed a moratorium on 

oil and gas development on the Reservation until the Tribe could gain better understanding and 

control over the process. That moratorium remained in place for 10 years while the Tribe compiled 

information and evaluated the quality and extent of its mineral resources. 

A series of events in the 1980s laid the groundwork for our subsequent success in energy 

development. In 1980, the Tribal Council established an in-house Energy Department, which spent 

several years gathering historical information about our energy resources and lease records. In 1982, 

following the Supreme Court's decision in Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe, the Tribal Council enacted 

a severance tax, which has produced more than $800 million in revenue over the last three decades. 

After Congress passed the Indian Mineral Development Act of 1982, we carefully negotiated mineral 

development agreements with oil and gas companies involving unleased lands, and insisted upon 

flexible provisions that vested the Tribe with business options and greater involvement in resource 

development. Because the Tribe's leaders believed that the Tribe could do a better job of monitoring 

its own resources than federal agencies, shortly after passage of the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty 

Management Act of 1982, the Tribe entered into a cooperative agreement with the Minerals 

Management Service permitting the Tribe to conduct its own royalty accounting and auditing. The 

Tribe can attest to the importance of federal legislation that allows tribes the option to take on a 

greater role in energy development on their reservations. 

In 1992, we started our own gas operating company, Red Willow Production Company, which 

was initially capitalized through a Secretarially-approved plan for use of $8 million of tribal trust 

funds received by our Tribe in settlement of reserved water right claims. Through conservative 

acquisition of on-Reservation leasehold interests, we began operating our own wells and received 

working interest income as well as royalty and severance tax revenue. In 1994, we participated with 

a partner to purchase one of the main pipeline gathering companies on the Reservation. Today, the 

Tribe is the majority owner of Red Cedar Gathering Company, which provides gathering, processing, 

and treating services throughout the Reservation. Ownership of Red Cedar Gathering Company 

allowed us to put the infrastructure in place to further develop and market coalbed methane gas from 

Reservation lands and provided an additional source of revenue. Our tribal leaders recognized that 

the peak level of on-Reservation gas development would be reached in approximately 2005, and in 

order to continue our economic growth, we expanded operations off the Reservation. 

These acts of energy development through self-determination are key to the Tribe's economic 

success. Today the Tribe, through its subsidiary energy companies, conducts sizeable oil and gas 

activities in approximately ten states and in the Gulf of Mexico. We are the largest employer in the 

Four Comers Region of southwest Colorado. Energy resource development has unquestionably had 

a great positive impact on the Tribe, our members, and the surrounding community. The regional 

Page 3 of9 
34 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 23 here 26359.023

community college even has a new associate degree program in Tribal Energy Management, and 

because of the Tribe's vast experience in this realm, the college has enlisted the Tribe's assistance 

and input. 

III. Indian Energy Development has an Enormous Impact on the Economic 

Prosperity ofTribes and the Livelihood of Individual Tribal Members. 

Less than fifty years ago the Tribal Council had to suspend the practice of distributing per capita 

payments to tribal members because the Tribe could not afford them. Today the Tribe provides 

health insurance for its tribal members, promises all members a college education, and has a campus 

dotted with state-of-the art buildings. This success was not an accident. Without a prolonged effort 

to take control of its natural resources, the Tribe would not be the economic powerhouse that it is 

today. Our energy -related economic successes have resulted in a higher standard of living for our 

tribal members. Our members have jobs. Our educational programs provide meaningful 

opportunities at all levels. Our elders have stable retirement benefits. We have exceeded many of 

our financial goals, and we are well on the way to providing our grandchildren and their 

grandchildren the opportunity to maintain our Tribe and its lands in perpetuity. 

Along the way, we have encountered and overcome numerous obstacles, some of which are 

institutional in nature. We have also collaborated with Congress over the decades in an effort to 

make the path ea~ier for other tribes to take full advantage of the economic promise afforded by tribal 

energy resources. As we have stated repeatedly to anyone who will listen to us, "W c arc the best 

protectors of our own resources and the best stewards of our own destiny; provided that we have 

the tools to use what is ours." Successful energy development, in spite of institutional obstacles, has 

also enabled the Tribe to invest in diverse, non-energy projects, laying the foundation for long-lasting 

economic prosperity. For example, the Tribe has made real estate investments in eleven markets 

located in eight states. These investments include residential, commercial, industrial, and hotel 

properties in California, Nevada, Colorado, Texas, Kansas, Illinois, Ohio, and Maryland. Return on 

these investments has spurred further economic growth for the Tribe, which would not have been 

possible but for the Tribe's active efforts to control and develop its energy resources. 

IV. Federal Oversight Often Impedes Tribal Self-Determination. 

The Tribe has achieved its stature despite the federal government's stifling role in Indian energy 

development. We have been carrying this same message to Capitol Hill since at least 2002. A 

memorandum from our legal counsel to the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs' legal counsel dated 

June 30, 2002 states: 

The problems with Secretarial approval of tribal business activities include an absence 

of available expertise within the agency to be helpful .... Some structural alternative 

is needed. The alternative should be an optional mechanism that allows tribes to elect 

Page 4 of9 
35 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 24 here 26359.024

to escape the bureaucracy for mineral development purposes, provided the Secretary 

has a reasonable indication that an electing tribe will act prudently once cut free. 

More than a decade later, the Tribe's longstanding concerns were supported by the findings of a 

2015 GAO Report that weaknesses in the Bureau of Indian Affairs' (BIA) management of oil and gas 

resources contributed to a general preference by industry to acquire oil and gas leases on non-Indian 

lands over Indian lands. This conclusion comes as no surprise to the Tribe, which is all too aware of 

this reality. For example, the State of Colorado, which issues drilling permits on fee lands, typically 

issues a permit in approximately 45 days. If the permit is not issued within 75 days, the operator has 

a right to a hearing. In comparison, on tribal lands, BLM issues the permits to drill, which typically 

take four to six months. There are no regulatory commitments to a processing timeframe; operators 

must simply wait. In addition, permitting costs are much higher on tribal lands than on fee lands. 

The ELM's drilling permit fee is $9,500.00, and none of that money goes to the Tribe. In 

comparison, a state drilling permit in Colorado is free. These disparities create a comparative 

disadvantage that is exacerbated on reservations like the Southern Ute Indian Reservation, where 

tribal land and non-Indian fee land are arranged like a checkerboard, and oil or gas operators can 

develop on non-Indian fee land for less time and money, while potentially depleting Indian minerals. 

Despite the Tribe's decades-long success in managing its own affairs and conducting highly 

complex business transactions, both on and off of the Reservation, federal law and regulations still 

require federal review and approval of even the most basic realty transaction occurring on the lands 

held in trust for the Tribe on the Reservation. Federal involvement invariably delays a proposed tribal 

project. These delays are exacerbated by the fact that a federal approval often constitutes a federal 

action, which triggers environmental and other review requirements, even for simple and 

straightforward realty transactions.ln essence, the Tribe's own lands are treated as public lands, and, 

if federal approval is involved, no action·- not even some initiated by the Tribe itself~ can occur 

until the federal government has analyzed the potential impacts. In order to eliminate these delays 

and in recognition of the Tribe's ability to protect its own interests and assets without assistance from 

federal agencies, the statutory and regulatory requirements for federal approval of tribal transactions 

must be modified so that federal review and approval of realty-related tribal projects is not required. 

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 offered a new and creative alternative to this situation in the form 

of "Tribal Energy Resource Agreements" (TERAs), which are essentially bi-lateral agreements 

betWeen an electing tribe and the Secretary of the Interior that would govern energy resource 

development on Indian lands. Under an approved TERA, a tribe would have the authority to 

negotiate and enter leases, business agreements, rights of way and other agreements without the prior 

review or approval of the Secretary. 

Entering into a TERA would---at least in theory-address the problems the Tribe has faced. 

However, the implementing regulations diminished the scope of authority to be obtained by a TERA 

Page 5 o£9 
36 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 25 here 26359.025

tribe by preserving the federal government's prerogative in carrying out an array of functions-called 

"inherently federal functions" in the vernacular----an undefined tenn that could render the Act's goal 

of fostering tribal decision-making and self-determination practically meaningless. For example, the 

Tribe would like to have the authority to issue Applications for Permits to Drill ("APDs"), but it is 

not clear whether that is an "inherently federal function." Despite the Tribe's repeated requests for 

clarification of the TERA process, and in particular, for clarification on what constitutes an 

"inherently federal function" for which the Tribe would not be allowed to assume authority under 

the Department's regulations, the Department of the Interior has refused to provide guidance. The 

Tribe has explained repeatedly why it has not entered into a TERA, and has even testified on the issue 

before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. So far, Congress has not enacted the amendments 

that would encourage tribes to assume greater responsibility for processing and approving energy 

transactions. 

Fortunately, Indian energy legislation currently pending would address other inefficiencies in the 

TERA process, but does not address the "inherently federal function" dilemma. Just last week the 

Senate Committee on Indian Affairs approved legislation to address some of the weaknesses in the 

TERA mechanism. The Tribe strongly supports the bill (S.245) and is hopeful it will be enacted into 

law this year. The bill would help to address some of the problems the Tribe has identified in this 

testimony by allowing tribes to make the choice to play a larger role in the energy development 

process and to allow the United States to play a smaller role. This is a solution that could be achieved 

even despite federal funding and staffing shortages. 

V. Willing and Able Tribes Should be Allowed Greater Authority over Energy 

Development on Tribal Lands. 

Some tribes do not need or desire the current level of federal interference and "oversight" in 

tribal energy development, and in some instances like at Southern Ute, the federal "oversight" is a 

massive and quantifiable impediment to the Tribe's ability to develop its own resources. The Tribe 

has consistently demonstrated that it can successfully complete major undertakings more quickly and 

effectively than federal agencies can. 

For example, after a 2014 Office of Trust Review and Audit (OTRA) report revealed the massive 

mishandling of the Tribe's priceless, historical trust and realty records at the Southern Ute Agency', 

1 The Tribe's repeatedly-expressed concerns about delays in BIA approvals led to a series of independent goverrunental 

investigations and reports documenting the gross deficiencies at the agency, culminating in a report issued by the Interior's 

Office of Inspector General in February, 2016. Brueau of Indian Affairs' Southern Ute Agency's Management of the 

Southern Ute Tribe's Energy Resources, Report No.: CR-EV-BL\-0011-2014 (Dep't of the Interior, OIG, Feb. 2016), 

sec also Indian Energy Development Additional Actions by Federal ~-\gencies Are Needed to Overcome Factors 

Hindering Development, Report No .. GA0-17-43 (GAO, Nov. 2016); Indian Energy Development- Poor Management 

by BL\ Has Hindered Development of Indian Lands, Report No. GA0-15-502 (GAO, June 2015); Trust Records in 

Page 6 of9 
37 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 26 here 26359.026

and after months of the Tribe virtually begging Interior to be allowed to help solve the problem, the 

BIA finally entered into a PL 93-638 contract that authorized the Tribe to (largely with the Tribe's 

own funding) scan and organize the Bureau's own archival files at the Southern Ute Agency before 

the files were sent to the American Indian Records Repository. The Tribe is then organizing the files 

in accordance with the Bureau's filing protocol, the 16 BIAM, which has been only loosely followed 

at the Southern Ute Agency in past decades. The electronic files are then being indexed into the 

Tribe's proprietary Geographic Information System (GIS). This scanning project, which utilizes 

$250,000 from the Department of the Interior and more than $1M of tribal money and the dedication 

of tribal staff, is well worth the money to the Tribe. The Tribe is well-equipped to define and 

articulate its best interests, yet the ethos of federal agencies is to second-guess and overrule it. This 

makes no sense, particularly given that federal agencies cannot themselves meet the Tribe's needs, 

and in at least this instance, was the cause of the problem. 

As another example, the Southern Ute Indian Tribe and major energy companies on the 

Reservation prefer to handle the renewal of a company's rights-of-way all at once. This utterly 

rational approach allows the Tribe to more easily monitor the end date and renegotiate renewals 

when an operator's hundreds of rights-of-way are handled together. In one instance, the Tribe was 

even able to leverage the renewals to require an operator on the Reservation to replace several 

grandfathered high pollutant-emitting J950s-era compressor engines in lieu of paying compensation 

for the right-of-way renewal. However, when the Tribe presented one such "global rights-of-way" 

package to the Southern Ute Agency for approval, it took the Agency approximately four years to 

approve it. The Tribe later learned that the biggest hurdle to prompt approval was that there was no 

effective way to enter the rights-of-way into the Department's Trust Asset and Accounting 

Management System (T AAMS). The unwieldiness ofT AAMS has been cited numerous times as an 

excuse for delays in energy transaction processing and as an excuse for why the BIA cannot assist the 

Tribe. The problem with the TAAMS system is well documented. (See U.S. Gov't Accountability 

Office, GA0-15-502, Indian Energy Development: Poor Management by BIA Has Hindered Energy 

Development on Indian Lands; Office oflnspector General, U.S. Dep't oflnterior, Report No.: CREV-BIA -00 I 1-20 14, Bureau of Indian Affairs' Southern Ute Agency's Management of the Southern 

Ute Tribe's Energy Resources.) 

To improve access to critical mineral resource information and to avoid being hamstrung by 

TAAMS, the Tribe's Department of Energy has scanned its entire set of files and developed an 

associated GIS system that allows each document to be linked to a location on a map. Together the 

store of digital documents and the GIS make up the Tribe's Department of Energy's "Land 

Information Management System" and represent a major improvement to tribal operations. 

Jeopardy, Report No. OTRA-14-015RA. (Office of Special Trustee, Aug., 2014); Records Management at Selected Bureau 

oflndian Affairs' Agency Offices, Report No. CR-IS-B!J\-0001-2014 (O!G,Jan., 2014). 

Page 7 of9 
38 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 27 here 26359.027

Basically, because the BIA lacks the technology and sophistication required to manage the Tribe's 

energy resources adequately, the Tribe developed its own database in-house, complete with the GIS 

module that TAAMS lacks. When the Southern Ute Agency needs a realty document, sometimes 

they just call the Tribe's Department of Energy to get it, because it is quicker. Juxtapositions like 

these-the disparity between the Tribe's technological acuity as compared to Interior's technological 

bankruptcy-~ make the "inherent federal function" requirement all the more patronizing and 

meaningless. 

"What is it that we need to do, to help you help us?" is a common refrain in meetings between the 

Southern Ute Tribal Council and Interior officials. The Tribe has implored the BIA in particular to 

accept the Tribe's countless offers to assist. BIA has repeatedly resisted those offers for reasons that 

are not particularly compelling. It is perfectly clear that the BIA does not have the data, resources, 

technological capabilities, or staffing to meet the needs of tribes. The Tribe has data, resources, 

staffing, technological capabilities, and the incentive to improve the situation. 

The Department constantly cites lack of resources as the reason for delays, but in the Tribe's 

experience, it sometimes seems as if more federal resources are expended trying to thwart the Tribe's 

exercise of self-determination than are spent supporting the Tribe. For example, when the Agency's 

records were discovered to be in utter disarray, and after an OTRA audit resulted in findings of 

records in jeopardy, the Tribe tried to assist the Bureau with cleanup and organization. However, 

the Bureau told the Tribe that because of its trust responsibility, tribal employees assisting with the 

Tribe's records needed to have extensive background checks, and staff from the BIA's Albuquerque 

Area Office met with tribal representatives in Ignacio to explain that the tribal employees did not 

have the knowledge and expertise necessary to assist. To address this, the Tribe had several of its 

employees go through the Department's background check process, which involved a long 

application, a 160 mile round trip drive to be finger-printed and have a photograph taken for facial 

recognition, and an hour-long interview with an Office of Personnel Management contract 

investigator. This process took many months, as did the negotiation of an MOU to establish the 

parameters within which the Tribe could provide assistance. The Tribe even hired local museum 

archivists to conduct training on archival techniques for Agency and tribal staff so that the BIA would 

allow tribal staff to handle the tribal records that had been desecrated by the BIA for decades. Time 

and time again the BIA held up its trust responsibility to the Tribe as the reason it could not allow the 

Tribe to assist. 

These issues are exacerbated by the difficult task of recruiting quality staff to fill critical energyrelated positions at the Southern Ute Agency. The positions are not advertised locally, there has not 

been a much-needed cost of living adjustment for the area, and there is no program in place to train 

new realty staff. To assist with the dire staffing shortage at the Agency, the Tribe has entered into 

Interpersonnel Agreements with the Bureau to allow for tribal staff, paid with tribal funds, to assist 

Page 8 of9 
39 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 28 here 26359.028

the Agency in processing realty transactions. This is not a long-term solution. But now, with the 

current administration's federal hiring freeze, filling these positions is completely impossible. If the 

current framework requiring BIA approval for energy projects persists, the hiring freeze must be 

lifted for those BIA positions related to the approvals necessary to get energy projects moving. 

VI. Conclusion. 

Like other energy tribes, the Southern Ute Indian Tribe's economic prosperity is due in large 

part to responsible energy development, and because of the Tribe's energy resources, tribal members 

have education, health, and employment benefits they would not likely otherwise have. The 

Southern Ute Indian Tribe, like many other tribes, is well-equipped to utilize its own energy 

resources, particularly if given ever-increasing self-determination, and if limited federal resources 

are used to encourage those efforts rather than stifling them. We believe that this approach should 

be at the forefront of any Congressional oversight and action taken as response to GAO's and OIG's 

reports and analyses. The Tribe appreciates the continued efforts of this Congress, this 

Subcommittee, and others to encourage tribal self-determination through economic and energy 

development. 

Page 9 of9 
40 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you very much. 

I’ll now—we’ll now do some questions. I’ll recognize myself to 

begin with. 

So let’s go, Mr. Rusco, why has it taken so long to get things approved in these agencies? 

Mr. RUSCO. Well, I think, you know, it gets to a couple of things: 

One is leadership attention, so they’ve not paid as much attention 

to sort of making sure that they have a plan to get the right staff 

in the right places to do the job. And so if you’re some place where 

you used to have a lot of, for example, water projects, irrigation 

projects or something, and you want to move to energy, you’d go 

to the BIA office, and they might have a whole bunch of hydrologists, but they don’t have anybody that knows anything about oil 

and gas development or wind development or anything like that. 

They need to be forward looking. They need to be creative. They 

have an Indian energy center—— 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. But you’re saying they may not have the expertise. How do we solve this without growing the size of government and bringing more bureaucrats into these agencies who will 

probably slow the process down? 

Mr. RUSCO. So I think there are some potential ways to do that, 

but under the current law, you have to—you do have to deal with 

these agencies. I think that there is a lot to be said for building 

that capacity in a central location, but you have to do it in a smart 

way. And the Indian energy center that they started is probably a 

good idea, but they have not executed it well. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Why didn’t they put EPA Fish and Wildlife in 

the core? I mean, I’m a Texan. I know these are the guys that 

you’ve got to mess with whenever you’re doing any sort of infrastructure or energy product. How come they weren’t included? 

Mr. RUSCO. Absolutely. And absolutely, when they were building 

or creating this office, they did not even ask the question: What do 

we need to perform the task that we say this is going to perform? 

They didn’t go to that trouble. And that’s a leadership problem. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Right. 

Ms. Kendall, do you have anything to add along this line of questioning? 

Ms. KENDALL. I really would just rearticulate what Mr. Rusco 

said. I think it is a leadership issue, and it is a forward-thinking 

kind of issue. To sit back and look at the entire picture, BIA has 

so many responsibilities, but I think they try piecemeal solutions 

without coming together and actually solving things. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. All right. So what about devolving some of this 

to the States? Mr. Thompson testified that in Colorado, for no 

charge and 45 days, you could get a drilling permit for oil and gas. 

In Texas, the Railroad Commission is equally as efficient. Obviously, there needs to be some government oversight where the 

Tribe itself is not—doesn’t have full authority just like no landowner has full authority without going to the government. Why 

couldn’t some of this be devolved to the States? 

Ms. KENDALL. Is that my question? 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. That’s your question, then I’m going to ask Mr. 

Thompson the same question. 

Ms. KENDALL. All right. Thank you, sir. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
41 

I think, in part, because Interior does have the trust responsibility, it would take a change in legislation. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Wait, we’re Congress. We can do that. 

Ms. KENDALL. Yes. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Thompson. 

Mr. THOMPSON. I think Southern Ute is in a unique position. I 

think there’s a lot of tribes that may not be as fortunate or as lucky 

as we have been to get to the point where we are today. And I 

think some of those moneys that are redirected towards assisting 

those tribes versus us, when we can—we can handle a lot of these 

situations that come up to really make business attractive on the 

reservation. I don’t think giving up or taking these regulations to 

the State would be in the Tribe’s best interest, just do the self-determination to sovereignty issues as we want to be doing what we 

need to do to survive in the world that we’re given. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. So you’re—you would more support reform 

within the existing Federal system? 

Mr. THOMPSON. I think there’s a chance to do things differently. 

It would take a little bit of letting go of that parental side of treatment that tribes have suffered through the years, and in redirecting those available resources to other tribes that may request 

it if they feel like they want to request it, and increase the ability 

of that internal function of BIA to be better than it’s ever been. But 

that’s only going to take place with good management in place. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. All right. We were talking about how much 

money you guys lost on the oil and gas. I assume, I mean, been 

saying that some of this permitting process took 8 years. I would 

love to be selling my natural gas and oil at prices 8 years ago as 

opposed to today. Do you have any other examples of where we 

can—where we should be focused? Obviously, the schools, the permitting process. Is that all we need to be looking at? 

Mr. THOMPSON. I think better consultation for all Indian tribes 

is a great idea. Consultation has always been good for some and 

not good for others. I’ve seen firsthand what the lack of consultation can do. But good proper consultation to make the programs 

that work for specific tribes. Every tribe is different. Every tribe’s 

needs are different, and to really make something that works for 

each tribe, I mean, it’s a big challenge, but it’s something that can 

be accomplished. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. All right. I see I’m out of time. If we get to the 

end and we still have some time, I’ll ask more questions, but I do 

want to give everybody an opportunity to get their questions answered. 

So we’ll recognize the ranking member now for her questions. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you again, testifiers, for your testimony this afternoon. 

Mr. Thompson, sir, you brought up some very interesting points. 

And one of the phrases that I thought you utilized, which I’d like 

you to elaborate on, is arbitrary trust responsibility, where you 

stated that in some instances, the trust wants to be responsible, 

and then in the times when you want them to be responsible 

they’re not. Can you elaborate on that. Do you remember? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes. I’m just thinking how to word it to you. But 

what I believe where the trust responsibility is really coming into 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
42 

play is they’re taking that trust responsibility and applying it to 

where they would like to, which is maybe the easier, better function for those in the agency at the top and instead of, you know, 

it really addressing the trust responsibility, we’re asking them to 

achieve at the moment with—in regards to realty transactions. If 

we could just really push some of these things for our tribe that 

benefit us now and quickly and in the long run, I mean, it would 

be a great thing to accomplish. 

As far as trust responsibility not being done in other fashions, I 

mean, there’s a lot of examples out there. And I’d be happy to provide you some certain examples in writing as well. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Thank you. You also talked, and all of the witnesses today mentioned the Tribal Energy Resources Agreement, 

and as a tool intended to promote efficient energy and resource development by allowing tribes to enter into energy-related business 

arrangements without further approval of the Secretary of Interior. 

Would that be a correct summary, Ms. Kendall, of the agreement? 

Ms. KENDALL. That’s my understanding of that provision. But as 

of today, to the best of my knowledge, no tribe has entered into a 

TERA agreement. 

Ms. PLASKETT. That’s what I wanted to talk about. Why do you 

think that has been, and what’s been the impediment to the tribes 

being able to do that? 

Ms. KENDALL. Well, I’d need to defer to Mr. Thompson to a certain extent because I know that the Southern Ute Tribe thought 

about that at one point. I think that there are some impediments 

relative to what the trust responsibilities of the Department are 

and what they could and should give up. I know that the Tribe has 

asked the Department for clarification on some issues and has not 

received that, and I think that’s one of the impediments. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Well, I understood that some of the—this goes 

back to the arbitrary discussion that Mr. Thompson talked about. 

But isn’t it also because the Interior’s regulations may not necessarily be very clear to some of the tribes and what will be imposed and not be imposed on that? 

Ms. KENDALL. That’s very possible, yes. 

Ms. PLASKETT. And then, Mr. Thompson, is that correct? Did 

you—I understand that your tribe did do an analysis on whether 

or not they should enter into this agreement and decided not to. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Uh-huh, that’s true. We’ve been looking at this 

for a while, and some of the things that keep us from this—I mean, 

one of the biggest points that comes to mind is the inherent Federal function part. The Interior has not defined that. We’ve been 

asking for a definition for some time. Once we can figure out what 

that is and then we can better plan to see what functions we’d actually be assuming. And even once assuming those functions, one 

of the things is TERAs are not going to provide funding for us to 

take over these Federal functions. So, I mean, our tribe, like other 

tribes, were just reluctant to move into that. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Mr. Rusco, would you think that analysis is correct from your review? 

Mr. RUSCO. Absolutely. I think, you know, as—you know, every 

tribe is different. And the abilities and capabilities to take over 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
43 

what have been Federal functions are going to differ, and there’s 

going to have to be capacity building. And so tribes are, understandably, weary about sort of saying, yes, I’ll take on this responsibility without knowing what exactly that entails, how much will 

be on them, how much will be—still remain Federal function, and 

then will they have support in order to get—build the capacity to 

take over the functions that are part of the TERA. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I just want to, as clarification, the pictures that 

you showed, which tribe was that from? 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. They were from various locations. Let me take 

a look. 

Flandreau Indian School was one of them. And where were the— 

all of the pictures are out of the OIG report. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Okay. Great. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. The details are in there. There was a boarding 

school in there as well. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Mr. Thompson, is the conditions that were evidenced in those photographs, is that some of the issues that you’re 

dealing with as well? 

Mr. THOMPSON. At this point, I believe that there’s a lot of tribes 

that utilize that funding for education. We are in a bit of a different situation, so I might not be the best person to ask. There’s 

other tribes—— 

Ms. PLASKETT. Right. Because your tribe actually, you know, 

with your AAA rating, you have a little bit more funding for education. Is that correct? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Mr. Chairman, it would be great if we could, in 

the future, maybe have some tribes as a witness who are really facing some of the economic—the challenges in education that we’ve 

stated today. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Absolutely. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Thank you. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you. 

At this point, we’ll go to the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Palmer, for 5 minutes of questions. 

Mr. PALMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Thompson—and thank you to all the witnesses for being 

here—I’m particularly interested in the work that you’re doing in 

oil exploration and utilizing those resources. I assume, and I’m not 

sure the geography of the—your tribal lands, but does that include 

the Green River Formation? 

Mr. THOMPSON. I believe Green River Formation might be a different—another Ute Tribe. There’s three of us. 

Mr. PALMER. It’s north of you, I believe. Isn’t it? Okay. So you 

talked about over—since 1982, you’ve generated over $1 billion in 

revenue from your activities. Is that correct? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes, through severance tax. 

Mr. PALMER. Severance tax. Are these companies that are owned 

and operated by the Ute Tribe? 

Mr. THOMPSON. No, these are operators that have leased—or 

through the Tribe have leased trust lands within the exterior 

boundaries of the reservation. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
44 

Mr. PALMER. So—but you’re collecting the revenues through the 

leases, and of the royalties you get a part of the royalties? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes. 

Mr. PALMER. I’m trying to understand this, because I’m a big believer in utilizing the natural resources and doing it in the right 

way. And what little I understand about the Ute tribal history, you 

have a great reverence for the land. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Uh-huh. 

Mr. PALMER. So you want to take advantage of these resources 

in a way that respects the land that you occupy, that you’ve occupied before anybody else occupied Colorado. Is that correct? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes. 

Mr. PALMER. Okay. And you’ve been able to do that? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes. I mean, we—like I said before in my oral 

statement, we’ve used that in the past as a way of leveraging environmental issues. We had one producer that had hundreds of, I 

guess, rights-of-ways that were coming to time to renew them. And 

at the time, they had grandfathered in a compressor system that 

was from the 1950s and dumping a lot of air pollution. We have 

real strict air regulations on the reservation. We work real close 

with the State on those air regulations. And so we used that as an 

opportunity to tell them they need to replace their compressor systems or they’re not going to be renewed on the reservation. 

Mr. PALMER. Good. 

Let me continue along this line on the permitting process. The 

Bureau of Land Management is responsible for the permitting? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes. Well—— 

Mr. PALMER. And—— 

Mr. THOMPSON. Sorry. Our department, we have our own department of energy, and they take that task on. And the land information system is a part of DOE along with our IT folks. 

Mr. PALMER. Maybe I misunderstood. I thought I understood you 

to say that on private land, they can—through Colorado, they can 

get a permit within 45 days. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes. 

Mr. PALMER. And it doesn’t cost them anything. But on Ute land, 

how long does it take? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Oh, it takes 4 to 6 months, usually. 

Mr. PALMER. And why is that? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Just the time it takes to walk through from the 

moment it leaves our office and goes to the agency office and then 

to the regional office and then to the interior office at HQ and then 

recirculating back to—with all those approvals. 

Mr. PALMER. Does that put you in a—at a disadvantage? 

Mr. THOMPSON. It does. As we know, the competitive business of 

oil and gas, time is money, so to speak. And if things aren’t expedited, it takes its toll. 

Mr. PALMER. Especially when most of the companies that are 

doing the type of oil expiration, they’re the smaller companies and 

they can’t really afford a long lead time after they secure a lease. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes. 

Mr. PALMER. Okay. Well, the reason I bring that up is because 

of some of the issues involving the Bureau of Land Management 

Federal lands and big companies being able to buy the leases and 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
45 

basically hold the leases to impact the market. And I wanted to 

know if that was the case, but if you’re doing the leases, you’re 

doing it—you’re utilizing the resources for the benefit of the Tribe. 

Mr. THOMPSON. We do a lot of hard work to make business attractive on the reservation, and it’s a team effort of good quality 

staff that make that happen. 

Mr. PALMER. How does this impact tribal employment? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Tribal employment, we push real hard for tribal 

employment. We have our growth on employees, quite a few tribal 

members. We’d like to see that increase. And through our education program we stress the fact that if we can get some engineers 

or geologists through our education program, they’d have a job 

waiting for them when they leave. 

Mr. PALMER. What’s your unemployment rate? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Unemployment on the reservation, I don’t have 

those numbers, but I can definitely provide that to you. 

Mr. PALMER. I would appreciate it if you’d provide that to the 

committee. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Okay. 

Mr. PALMER. I had something else I wanted to address in the 

context of utilizing these revenues. For years, the United States 

had a ban on exporting crude oil. We have now lifted that ban. I 

think—what was that, Mr. Chairman?—that was in December of 

2015? 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Right. 

Mr. PALMER. Have you seen any uptick increase in interest in 

those resources? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Most of what we’ve been paying attention on 

since 2015 has been the focus of, you know, the falling oil prices. 

So I don’t know if that had any effect on that or how that all 

played a part. But, I mean, just the fall in the oil prices—— 

Mr. PALMER. How has the regulatory regime, the new regulations 

that have been handed down impacted the opportunities for companies to come in and secure a lease and actually start production? 

Mr. THOMPSON. I think that the regulations that come through 

the BLM and onto the reservation, one of the toughest parts was 

BLM trying to place us under the title of public lands, and that 

really concerned us towards the choice of—or not towards the 

choice but the discussion of sovereignty. And we took charge in 

that to try to head that off. 

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, I think there’s something that we 

need to explore a little bit further about how the Bureau of Land 

Management is impacting the ability of—— 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. This is our introductory hearing, and we’re 

going to figure out where we’re going to go from here, so absolutely. 

Mr. PALMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. That would be appropriate. 

And the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands, we’re going to go 

back over to the Democratic side and let her ask some questions 

and then we’ll be back to Mr. Comer. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I’ll be Mr. Raskin if you need me to be for this portion. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. I think you’re fine being who you are. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Thank you. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
46 

Thank you all so much again for this. And I wanted to ask some 

questions to you, Mr. Rusco. In the high-risk report, there are some 

issues related to education of the tribal youth. I wanted to talk 

about that a little bit. 

It appears that not only are the children not being properly educated, but they’re being placed in harm’s way with outdated and 

deteriorating equipment and infrastructure. We saw pictures of 

this earlier. Is that—would you say that that’s a correct assessment? 

Ms. EMREY-ARRAS. That is correct. Actually, we found instances 

where boilers had failed inspection because of carbon monoxide 

leaks, natural gas leaks. And those leaks persisted, in some cases 

for as much as 8 months, in student dorms with staff and students 

still there. 

Ms. PLASKETT. And that’s very disturbing. And I wanted to 

know, has any of that resulted in injuries to the children or staff 

at this point? 

Ms. EMREY-ARRAS. We know that they did fix it. We don’t have 

any information regarding the medical situation for those individuals, but it’s certainly not a condition that we want our schools to 

be in. And it is not acceptable for students and staff to be in those 

environments. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Thank you. And this is an ongoing problem that 

I know the GAO has identified. From previous reports, have you 

seen any improvements in this? Have there been changes that are 

done since the reports that were done previously? 

Ms. EMREY-ARRAS. There have been some improvements, I think, 

because of our work and because of the work of this Congress in 

terms of shining a light on issues. We did find, for example, last 

year, that about a third of schools had not been inspected for many 

years for health and safety issues. And in response to our work, the 

Department made sure that every school was inspected for the first 

time this past fiscal year. 

However, we’re not sure that those inspections were complete or 

accurate. And the reason I say that is that because in the past, 

there were situations where, for example, someone did a drive-by 

where they never left their car. They did the inspection from their 

car, never went into a single building. And in one case, there was 

a school with 34 buildings, inspector never went inside and produced an inspection. Not surprisingly, there were no deficiencies 

noted for inside the buildings. 

Ms. PLASKETT. So with seeing that there—what would be the 

thing that would allow for these, not just the inspections to be done 

and not just us shining a light on them, but actual movement in 

terms of improvement for children and the environment in which 

they’re expected to go to school? 

Ms. EMREY-ARRAS. The bottom line is you need to be able to 

identify these safety hazards and then fix them. The schools need 

to get help in remedying these issues, and we made a recommendation that the Department assist schools in doing this, and that has 

yet to be implemented. 

Ms. PLASKETT. And when you say the department, which department do you mean? 

Ms. EMREY-ARRAS. Department of Interior, Indian Affairs. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
47 

Ms. PLASKETT. Okay. And so then, Ms. Kendall, what have been 

the measures that your department or DOI has implemented or 

have you seen done to address these issues? And for those issues 

that have not been addressed, what would be the impetus or the 

assistance to help you get that done? Because I can’t believe that 

the Department of Interior wants children to be in these positions 

of, you know, going to school and in environments like this. So 

what is the help that you need to make sure that that’s done? 

What are the things that are keeping you from getting that done? 

Ms. KENDALL. Well, we’ve identified issues with the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs and the Bureau of Indian Education’s resource levels, but I think much of it is more distribution and using those resources effectively. The Office of Inspector General, of course, has 

no programmatic authority to make any of these things happen. 

But I think that greater oversight over BIA and BIE by this body 

and other congressional oversight, in addition to the oversight that 

my office and GAO conducts, would go a long way, as well as some 

really serious leadership action by probably new leadership in the 

Office of Indian Affairs, BIA, and BIE. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Now, this is the second time that you’ve mentioned a change in leadership or the problems coming from leadership, coming from the top down. Why have you said that? 

Ms. KENDALL. Well, it hasn’t gotten significantly better. I’ve been 

with the Office of Inspector General for 17 years, and frankly, I 

think we could probably reissue many of the reports that we issued 

10, 12 years ago and find much the same kind of conditions that 

we find today. Perhaps here and there things have gotten better, 

based usually on recommendations by GAO or the OIG. But as a 

whole, the system is very, very problematic. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Thank you. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I think that sounds like a witness list for us 

for potentially another hearing. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. We’ll work on it. We’ve got a very busy schedule for this committee, as you know. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Let’s get to work. No problem. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. All right. So now we’ll go to—we’re going to 

finish out on the—let everybody get their first round in here. So 

we’ll move on to Mr. Comer from Kentucky. 

Mr. COMER. Well, thank you. 

I wanted to focus on development and drilling there. Obviously, 

there’s a window of opportunity in Washington to try to open back 

up and redefine our energy policy, and certainly your economy, this 

would be a huge boost to it. 

I have a question, Mr. Thompson, where does the money go that 

BLM charges for the permit fee? 

Mr. THOMPSON. We don’t get a report on that. 

Mr. COMER. I understand. You don’t get any of that? It’s a—— 

Mr. THOMPSON. It’s—— 

Mr. COMER. Do you know the amount? 

Mr. THOMPSON. $9,500 is the permit fee, but where that goes, I 

couldn’t tell you. 

Mr. COMER. Does anyone know where that money goes? 

Mr. RUSCO. It goes into the general fund. 

Mr. COMER. The general fund. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
48 

What prevents BLM from approving the drilling permits for tribal land sooner? 

Mr. RUSCO. That’s a question of concern. We don’t know exactly 

why, but there are a number of things we’ve pointed out. And so 

the first thing is they don’t track the times so—for permits very 

well. So we’ve been down this path. We have oil and gas development on Federal lands in general on the high-risk list. 

We’ve found that there’s problems of having people in the right 

places at the right times. They often don’t have the staff they need 

to do all the jobs that they have to do, and they haven’t been very 

creative in getting them there. There have been a couple of good 

pilots to pull people from some places to busier—less busy places 

to busier places, and those have worked. They need to be better at 

that. They need to be more nimble and more creative. 

Mr. COMER. Okay. That’s all. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you very much. 

We will now recognize the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Chaffetz. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I thank the chairman. 

A couple things I want to talk about. Do you know—any of you 

know what the percentage of students who are considered to have 

grade-level math skills is? Because my statistics that are right here 

before me say that only 5 percent of students are reaching gradelevel math skills. Does that sound right? Crickets. Nobody? Could 

you please look at that. 

I’m reading another stat that says—does anybody know what the 

national dropout rate is of the students, Native American students, 

or high schools, grade schools? No? 

This is something, I guess, I would plead with both the GAO and 

the Office of Inspector General to have at the top of their minds 

as they look at this. My understanding is that is 47 percent. Fortyseven percent, pretty high. 

Part of the issue that we have in Utah, right across, Mr. Thompson, across the border there in the Four Corners area—I happen 

to represent Utah’s Third Congressional District—we have a lot of 

the Navajo Nation, 3 percent of the Navajo Nation, the greater 

Navajo Nation is in Utah. We have seven chapters in my congressional district. 

We have a heavy—or a big problem with roads and the ability 

to get to school and back. Mr. Thompson, I don’t know what it’s 

like on the Colorado side of the line, but do you have these types 

of problems, school buses, kids, their ability to get to school? How 

far do they travel to get to school? What’s your personal experience 

on this issue? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Again, because of the checkerboard nature of the 

reservation, we also have a municipal city close by to the tribal 

headquarters. So the tribal community surrounds this municipality, and it’s pretty close. So, I mean, the access isn’t difficult, 

and it’s an improving school system, happy to say. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Good. Good. 

Mr. THOMPSON. We work pretty close to our education department and the school to make sure people are where they need to 

be. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I think if you would look, though—and this is my 

plea also to GAO and the Inspector General’s Office—as you go out 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
49 

and visit this part of the world, what people don’t realize is how 

expansive it is. My county, San Juan County, is bigger than New 

Jersey. We have one stoplight. 

And if you look probably into Mr. Gosar’s district, look into, you 

know, in the Four Corners area, one of the big problems that we 

have is the ability of our students to get to school, because when 

it rains or there’s snow, there is a big problem with—and we’ve got 

lots of pictures. The school funding levels have not changed to deal 

with road maintenance. 

San Juan County is doing everything it can. But you have students that on average, in many places, miss more than a day of 

school per month just because they can’t get to school. 

And I think she would like to say something. Have you been 

sworn in, I hope? 

Ms. EMREY-ARRAS. I have. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Okay. Good. 

Ms. EMREY-ARRAS. My name is Melissa Emrey-Arras. I’m with 

the GAO. I think this is very much on point, and I want to let you 

know that GAO is currently investigating this issue of tribal roads 

and school attendance, and we have a forthcoming report on this 

topic. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Very good. Do you have a sense of the timing of 

this? 

Ms. EMREY-ARRAS. I believe it’s late spring. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Very good. That is greatly appreciated. We did 

offer an amendment on an appropriations bill and were able to get 

that through. But because of the CR, I don’t know that it actually 

made it all the way to the finish line, but—to the level that we’d 

like to see in the future. But it is a big problem and your report 

would be much, much appreciated. 

The per-pupil spending is much higher than it is actually in 

other parts of the country. Your ability to help us understand why 

the dropout rate is so high, reading and writing and certainly the 

math level is so low, we would very, very much appreciate. 

Ms. EMREY-ARRAS. I could speak to some of that, if that would 

be helpful at this moment. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Sure. Sure. 

Ms. EMREY-ARRAS. We have done a look at school spending, and 

you’re completely right. It’s much higher on a per-pupil basis for 

the BIE schools. We found that it was 56 percent higher than comparable public schools. A lot of that has to do, as you point out, 

with the remote locations of the schools. Also, the schools tend to 

have lower enrollments than public schools. And in addition, quite 

a few of the students tend to be low income and in need of special 

education services, which are more costly. So those are some of the 

driving factors for the difference in cost. 

And in terms of the academics, as you point out, students in the 

BIE school system do perform worse than students elsewhere. We 

found, for example, that students attending BIE schools scored 22 

points lower for reading tests and 14 points lower for math tests 

in the fourth grade than other Indian students attending public 

schools. So this is, you know, very comparable in that way. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Right. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
50 

Ms. EMREY-ARRAS. And as you all know, the graduation rates are 

also much lower for Indian students attending BIE schools than Indian students nationwide. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. And so my plea, I guess, for the panel and everybody is we can keep doing what we’re doing and we’ll probably get 

the same results. But if you want a different result, we’re probably 

going to have to do something different. So suggestions, ideas on 

what to do different rather than just spend more money, because 

we’re already spending more money, we’ve got to be able to figure 

out how to get a different result. And we’re open to the ideas and 

possibilities. 

I’ve gone over my time. Thank you, Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you very much. We’ll now recognize the 

vice chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Arizona, 

Mr. Gosar. 

Mr. GOSAR. I thank the chairman. Mr. Thompson, my family is 

from Durango and Bayfield. So thank you very much for all that 

you do. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you. 

Mr. GOSAR. I want to the highlight your tribe. Because you’ve 

taken advantage of your resources and development. Right? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes. 

Mr. GOSAR. That’s why you’re in the position you are today. 

Right? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Part of the reason, sure. 

Mr. GOSAR. Pretty aggressive. Right? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Oh, yeah. Pretty aggressive. 

Mr. GOSAR. So I want to go back to these TERAs. Okay? Because 

they’re of high conflict in your opinion. Right? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes. 

Mr. GOSAR. Okay. So part of the problem is is that the interior 

has—or BIA has been very poor on their promises. Right? In keeping their promises? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Historically, yes. 

Mr. GOSAR. So if you were to write, looking at these TERAs, have 

you had any direct review of these TERAs personally yourself? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Personally, we’ve gone through a few since my 

time. And it’s been a discussion for quite a bit of time, actually, 

within our legal team and other council members of the past. 

Mr. GOSAR. Have you made proposals to BIA and BLM in regard 

to how those TERAs could be better defined or how their interpretations are? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes. We’ve made suggested changes, requested 

information, especially on the inherent Federal functions. We’ve 

also asked about how they were measured, travel capacity, how 

they will define the inclusion of public in the discussion process, 

and also the—just what is the assumed Federal functions the tribe 

will take on. That’s been some unclear answers since the beginning 

of questioning. 

Mr. GOSAR. Did you get any answers? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Not to this day. 

Mr. GOSAR. Would you—would it be possible to get those— those 

letters of inquiry to the committee? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
51 

Mr. THOMPSON. I’m sure we could provide you with a lot of documentation to that effect. 

Mr. GOSAR. So in getting back to these TERAs and giving up to— 

because I thought I heard some of the aspects of impugned sovereignty. Non-sovereignty. Right? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Okay. 

Mr. GOSAR. Is that what I heard? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Just—— 

Mr. GOSAR. Within these TERAs. 

Mr. THOMPSON. I think it’s close to how TERAs will affect our 

sovereignty. And we want to always empower tribes, our tribe, 

other tribes to have more—to have more responsibility over what 

governs themselves and how we govern ourselves, and so we try to 

get to that. 

Mr. GOSAR. See, I like where you’re going. So I’m going to go 

back to these permitting processes because of the inherent bias 

within—I think is going on within the agency. Do you have the 

same kind of problems for alternative energy? 

Mr. THOMPSON. No. We actually received a pretty good grant to 

get solar projects started on our reservation—— 

Mr. GOSAR. Are they fast tracked? 

Mr. THOMPSON. It should come up on online this spring. 

Mr. GOSAR. Wow. What wind of permitting time was that? 

Mr. THOMPSON. It was started right before I came in. Do we 

know how long that was? It was a few years of permitting process, 

though. 

Mr. GOSAR. So it went through a full long line of permitting. So 

something still similar to that application? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes. 

Mr. GOSAR. Was there a change in aptitude in regards to looking 

at alternative energy versus oil and gas? 

Mr. THOMPSON. I’m not sure there was a change in aptitude on 

that. 

Mr. GOSAR. So was it easier to find people to come out then to 

review it? I would be just—I would be really intrigued by that because I’m a believer in all-the-above energy policy. And so, you 

know, I think that we have got to feign away the biases. My—go 

ahead. 

Mr. THOMPSON. I’m sorry. I think this would be a great opportunity to invite you to our reservation to see what we do and 

maybe—— 

Mr. GOSAR. I go through there all the time. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Well, I mean just meet with our staff and really 

talk about these things and get these answers firsthand. It would 

be a great opportunity. 

Mr. GOSAR. Well, and it drives me to my point about sovereignty 

is that if you’re truly sovereign, really, why is it that the BIA or 

the BLM is truly involved? 

Mr. THOMPSON. I think it comes down again to what they define 

as tribal trust responsibility and—— 

Mr. GOSAR. No, but I think they are two different things. 

Mr. THOMPSON. There is. 

Mr. GOSAR. Because in sovereignty, I mean, there shouldn’t be 

an inherited trust obligation because you’re taking that. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
52 

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes. 

Mr. GOSAR. So I think that conversation should be a very innate 

one. But I’d really like to explore more about the TERAs. And in 

regards to you, because you have been a very successful tribe, and 

I think a lot more tribes need to understand how you leverage that. 

Because it’s very similar to what western states were promised in 

regards to royalties and shared royalties for the betterment of education and government—rural governments stuff like that and infrastructure projects. 

So we’ll keep this up. I’ve run out of time. I appreciate it, Mr. 

Thompson. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you. 

Mr. ISSA. [Presiding.] The gentleman yields back. I’ll now recognize myself for a round of questioning. 

This morning at the full committee in this same room we had 

Gene Dodaro. And I asked him basically three questions related to 

this afternoon’s hearing. And it went like this: Isn’t it true that the 

Federal Government has failed our tribes when it comes to their 

education? Isn’t it true that we have been less than responsive at 

helping them build their energy requirements? I didn’t name oil 

versus anything else. I just said energy, and he said yes. And as 

I went through that process, what I’ve discovered was we, the Federal Government, have failed. 

And when I asked the general what we should do about it, he 

said: Well, I will be meeting with HHS when it comes to the health 

care part, which was the third failure, I’ll be meeting with the new 

Secretary. And when I meet with, when confirmed, the new Secretary of the Interior, he’s got a big job. And he’s going to have to 

make fundamental changes. 

Now, I say this just to make sure that you knew what your boss 

had said. Do you see any difference in the fact that our Federal 

Government in the past several years has failed in these three 

areas sufficiently that for the first time that I’ve been looking at 

it these are on the high risk? 

Mr. RUSCO. No, I was at this morning’s hearing. And I’d never 

disagree with the Comptroller General. But—— 

Mr. ISSA. Well, this is one place you’re welcome to shed some 

light. We’ll give you congressional immunity, of course. 

Mr. RUSCO. Thank you. But no, I agree—I agree 100 percent. 

This is a case where in all three areas we all agreed that the body 

of work that had been done in there showed a persistent failure to 

efficiently and appropriately manage Federal programs designed to 

serve tribes and their members. 

Mr. ISSA. And I’m particularly concerned about health care. It 

would seem that at a time when we put just in ObamaCare subsidies $51 billion into subsidies for less-well-off people, it sounds 

likes Indian health didn’t get their share of that. 

Mr. RUSCO. Kathy King is here from our healthcare group to—— 

Mr. ISSA. Kathy, good to have an expert. 

Ms. KING. A few years ago we did some projections about the 

number of Indians that would be eligible for—or potentially eligible 

for care under the ACA, both under Medicaid and under the exchanges. And we found that there were hundreds of thousands that 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
53 

could be potentially eligible, depending upon whether you live in a 

State where Medicaid has expanded. 

Mr. ISSA. But in most cases, if you live on tribal land, such as 

the Navajo and others, you’re very likely to be below that 135 percent of the poverty 

Ms. KING. Yeah. Yes. We have not gone back and looked to see 

how many of them have actually enrolled in those programs. But 

the enrollment in those programs can be potentially helpful in two 

ways. 

One, if people enroll in Medicaid or the exchanges and they seek 

care at an IHS facility, then they—IHS can bill for those services 

and they can augment their revenues and serve more people. Or 

if they go elsewhere, that frees up more money for people at IHS. 

Mr. ISSA. Well, and that begs the question of if somebody comes 

in to a Native facility, are they asking: Are you on it, and then assisting them in getting on it, which ultimately is a self-funding 

method. Did you find that in your overview? 

Ms. KING. We did our work before the ACA actually took effect. 

But one of things that we were concerned about—— 

Mr. ISSA. But Medicaid was still a question back then. 

Ms. KING. Yeah, Medicaid was still a concern. But—were the expansions. They do have patient care representatives. But one of the 

things that we would have liked them to do is to expand their use 

of patient care representatives to help with what we thought would 

be an onslaught of enrollment. And they said that they were not 

able to do that. 

Mr. ISSA. And as a result, what could have improved life for Native Americans didn’t happen. And that’s why they’re on the endangered—or the high risk list. 

Ms. KING. Some of our work predated that. So we don’t know for 

sure. But, you know, there are two ways that people get care 

through the IHS. You can get care at an IHS facility, or if the services are not available there, which they frequently aren’t, then they 

buy services on the open market. And when they do that, there is 

a priority listing that varies from area to area. So in some areas 

the only people who get care are people who are in danger of life 

or limb. 

Mr. ISSA. In other words, we’re giving less than the care that 

they were promised because we either—either they can’t come to 

a clinic that has the facility or we’re crying poor and rationing care. 

Ms. KING. There is a trust responsibility. 

Mr. ISSA. Okay. I’ll close quickly because the energy issue Mr. 

Gosar touched on I want to just run one question. And I’m not a 

lawyer. So that means that I may ask a question I don’t know the 

answer to. But in a nutshell, the last 8 years, in my estimation, 

there’s been a war on carbon, on coal, on oil, and natural gas. 

When you look at the difficulty the tribes have getting through 

a bureaucracy even though they pay for something that is their 

asset on their sovereign land, is there any possibility that not that 

they were singled out but they were caught up in a war on carbon 

that occurred that caused them to be simply not able to exercise 

their rights? And I ask that because clearly Federal land usage for 

natural gas, oil, and coal dropped over the last 8 years while it rose 

on non-Federal land. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
54 

Mr. RUSCO. There is a lot there. So we did find that these delays 

and problems with permitting and development occurred across the 

board for energy on tribal lands. So there are wind projects that 

had been languishing for years, and meanwhile State or utility 

agreements to purchase the power expired and they had to renegotiate these things. And we found that kind of across the board. 

Mr. ISSA. So if I can summarize what you said, you’re saying the 

last several years they’ve been inept at allowing Native Americans 

to utilize the resources. And as a result, it has hurt their ability 

to help themselves? 

Mr. RUSCO. Certainly when you miss an opportunity and, you 

know, for example, for oil and gas, development is all about the 

price of the resource and the location of the resource. When prices 

are high, companies are like all over the place. And if you can’t get 

a permit through in time and the price falls, they’re less interested. 

So there is a—there’s an inherent disadvantage if you know you’re 

going to go into a long permitting process. 

Mr. ISSA. Well, since the gentleman from Texas comes from a 

place where they do permits on a State basis and they do them 

quickly, I will let him reassume the chair. And I thank all of you 

and yield back. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. [Presiding.] Ms. Plaskett, do you have some 

more questions? 

Ms. PLASKETT. I do have a couple more questions. Thank you for 

your indulgence, Mr. Chairman. 

Touching on the question that was just raised by my colleague 

Mr. Issa about the Affordable Care Act, Mr. Rusco, do you know, 

is it possible for GAO to make a determination on how many American Indians are currently using—I know that that was not part of 

your last report. But do you or, Ms. Kendall, have you looked at 

ways of determining who is taking advantage of that? 

Ms. KING. We could examine eligibility rolls. 

Ms. PLASKETT. And would that also tell you the other question 

I asked, was his informing tribal members that the Affordable Care 

Act was available for them? 

Ms. KING. They did do—in response to our recommendations, 

they did begin doing some outreach. There was a delay because of 

there was some uncertainty about whether the Affordable Care Act 

would go into effect or not. But they did do some outreach. But we 

could now go back and look at eligibility rolls and determine 

whether—determine how many people enrolled. 

Ms. PLASKETT. I mean, I just find this, you know, heartbreaking 

because this really correlates to so much of what’s happening in my 

own community and in most communities, minority communities, 

underserved communities, where people are dying of preventable 

diseases. 

And a lot of it is treatable health conditions related to diabetes 

and hypertension and some of these other areas that we should be 

taking up the slack in. 

Ms. KING. Yes. And we do know that Native Americans have a 

shorter life expectancy and greater comorbidities. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Okay. Thank you very much. 

And the other questions that I have are related to Ms. Kendall. 

When there was the creation of the inspector general, which you 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
55 

say you’ve been there now for 17 years, to detect waste, fraud, and 

abuse, you do that by hiring auditors and investigators. Correct? 

Ms. KENDALL. That’s correct. 

Ms. PLASKETT. How many do you have on staff now? 

Ms. KENDALL. We have roughly 100 auditors and about 95 investigators. 

Ms. PLASKETT. And that’s for the Department of Interior? 

Ms. KENDALL. For the entire Department. 

Ms. PLASKETT. And what are they reviewing? What’s the scope 

of their review? 

Ms. KENDALL. Well, we have nine bureaus and offices that comprise the Department of the Interior. So our oversight responsibility is vast. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Okay. And ‘‘vast’’ meaning how many thousands 

of—— 

Ms. KENDALL. Seventy thousand employees. About that again of 

grantees and contractors. 

Ms. PLASKETT. So that’s a good point. So you’re not only reviewing yourself, but you have contractors and vendors and others that 

you do review for. 

Ms. KENDALL. That’s correct. 

Ms. PLASKETT. So the announcement of a hiring freeze in the recent administration has—what has happened in the past when 

you’ve had hiring freezes in terms of the agency and the inspector 

general being able to complete their operations? 

Ms. KENDALL. Well, essentially like all the OIGs, we are very 

personnel driven. And close to 80 percent of our budget goes to salaries. We have no programmatic functions or funding. And so a hiring freeze, much like budget reductions, hit us in a fundamental 

ability to do our job. 

Ms. PLASKETT. And that’s important under this committee because we rely on you all so much for the reports and the timely 

reports that you give us so that he we can identify these areas that 

are of concern so we can address the Bureau of Indian Affairs and 

their discrepancies, deal with the school issues that we have. 

Can you describe for us some of the challenges that your office 

will face now if there’s a hiring freeze in the Office of Inspector 

General? 

Ms. KENDALL. Well, certainly we do not have a great deal of vacancies right now. But if we were to continue to lose people to retirement or to other agencies or to the private sector, we would be 

limited considerably in being able to fill those positions. 

As I heard Mr. Dodaro this morning talk about hiring freezes, I 

believe he said that historically they have not been particularly effective in terms of saving funds. But certainly agencies like ours 

who are really personnel driven, we are affected fairly significantly. 

Ms. PLASKETT. Okay. Thank you. 

Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you. And I just want to follow up on 

one thing. My inner tech geek is going to come out. 

So I wanted to talk to Mr. Thompson about your scanning 

project. One of the—I also serve on the Technology Subcommittee 

of this committee. And one of things that I’ve noticed is our Federal 

Government couldn’t compute its way out of a paper bag someVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:07 Aug 25, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\26359.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
56 

times. Could you outline the scanning program and the GIS program and how you all took that over and how that is helping the 

Federal Government. 

And do you think there’s some ways that, based on what you 

have done, the Federal agencies or other tribes could improve the 

service within the Federal Government by things that you do yourselves? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Awesome. I guess there was—a few years ago 

there was a deadline set on realty records and BIA records all 

being consolidated to a place in Oklahoma. It was concerning to us 

and we needed those documents to do our business on a day-to-day. 

So that’s when this—there was a rush to try to do something to 

start scanning these records in. At the same time we needed a better system of—then TAAMS could ever provide. And we needed 

something more efficient to help us be better stewards of our land 

and our opportunities. 

So we developed the land information—the land information 

management system as a way of making it easier to track all realty 

functions that take place on the reservation, all the rights of ways, 

anything related to energy going into this system to give us a point 

and kind of situation that we can get to the documents we need 

to do what we need to do. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. And you were able to find a software solution, 

hardware pollution, to do that relatively easily and inexpensively? 

Mr. THOMPSON. No. We created the system ourselves internally. 

It wasn’t something that anybody else had to offer that would work 

for us. So it was something that we developed on our own with 

good people and time. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Okay. And do you—given the—in hindsight, 

would you do it again? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Well, I think if we had to go through this entire 

process of having to do it, I wish that that could have been different. But, I mean, it did produce an opportunity for us to create 

something that—— 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. And is that something you’re open to sharing 

with potentially other tribes or, you know, sharing your experience 

in there working together to make things better for everybody? 

Mr. THOMPSON. I think Southern Ute’s always willing to help 

other tribes as much as they can, showing them what we have done 

as a success story in any country in energy development. And, 

again, we are throwing out the offer or the invitation to see a demonstration. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. All right. Great. Ms. Plaskett, do you have 

anything else? 

All right. I’d like to thank our witnesses to for taking time to appear before us today. 

I’d also like to ask unanimous consent that members have 5 legislative days to submit questions for the record. Without objection, 

that’s so ordered. 

If there’s no additional business, without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:26 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER