U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

68–049 PDF 2011

REGULATORY BARRIERS TO AMERICAN INDIAN

JOB CREATION

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY, INFORMATION

POLICY, INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS AND

PROCUREMENT REFORM

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

APRIL 7, 2011

Serial No. 112–32

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

(

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

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman

DAN BURTON, Indiana

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah

CONNIE MACK, Florida

TIM WALBERG, Michigan

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan

ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona

RAU ́ L R. LABRADOR, Idaho

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee

JOE WALSH, Illinois

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina

DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida

FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Ranking

Minority Member

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa

PETER WELCH, Vermont

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut

JACKIE SPEIER, California

LAWRENCE J. BRADY, Staff Director

JOHN D. CUADERES, Deputy Staff Director

ROBERT BORDEN, General Counsel

LINDA A. GOOD, Chief Clerk

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY, INFORMATION POLICY, INTERGOVERNMENTAL

RELATIONS AND PROCUREMENT REFORM

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma, Chairman

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania, Vice Chairman

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah

TIM WALBERG, Michigan

RAU ́ L R. LABRADOR, Idaho

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia, Ranking

Minority Member

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

JACKIE SPEIER, California

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on April 7, 2011 ................................................................................ 1

Statement of:

Kendall, Mary L., Acting Inspector General, Department of the Interior;

Anu K. Mittal, Director, Natural Resources and Environment Team,

U.S. Government Accountability Office; Rodney M. Bordeaux, president, Rosebud Sioux Tribe, given by Patricia Douville, council member,

Rosebud Sioux Tribe; and Ron Allen, chairman, Jamestown S’Klallam

Tribe ............................................................................................................... 4

Allen, Ron .................................................................................................. 44

Bordeaux, Rodney M. ................................................................................ 35

Kendall, Mary L. ....................................................................................... 4

Mittal, Anu K. ........................................................................................... 13

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Allen, Ron, chairman, Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe, prepared statement

of ..................................................................................................................... 46

Bordeaux, Rodney M., president, Rosebud Sioux Tribe, prepared statement of ........................................................................................................... 38

Kendall, Mary L., Acting Inspector General, Department of the Interior,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 7

Mittal, Anu K., Director, Natural Resources and Environment Team,

U.S. Government Accountability Office, prepared statement of ............... 15

(1)

REGULATORY BARRIERS TO AMERICAN

INDIAN JOB CREATION

THURSDAY, APRIL 7, 2011

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY, INFORMATION POLICY,

INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS AND PROCUREMENT

REFORM,

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:40 p.m., in room

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. James Lankford (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Connolly, Lankford, and Labrador.

Also present: Representative Issa.

Staff present: Ali Ahmad, deputy press secretary; Molly Boyl,

parliamentarian; Joseph A. Brazauskas, counsel; Sharon Casey,

senior assistant clerk; Christopher Hixon, deputy chief counsel,

oversight; Justin LoFranco, press assistant; Kristina M. Moore,

senior counsel; Adam Miles, minority professional staff member;

Leah Perry, minority chief investigative counsel; and Brian Quinn,

minority counsel.

Mr. LANKFORD. The committee will come to order.

We do apologize for running a little bit behind. As you know well,

we have some votes being called; and we are very confident to have

to be able to take a short recess here in a moment and do some

other votes.

Let me do a quick statement here, the oversight committee mission statement. This is Regulatory Barriers to Indian American Job

Creation. So I want to read this statement quickly.

We exist to secure two fundamental principals. First, Americans

have a right to know that the money Washington takes from them

is well spent; and, second, Americans deserve an efficient, effective

government that works for them.

Our duty in the Oversight and Government Reform Committee

is to protect these rights. Our solemn responsibility is to hold government accountable to the taxpayers, because taxpayers have a

right to know what they get from their government. We will work

tirelessly in partnership with citizen watchdogs to deliver the facts

to the American people and bring genuine reform to the Federal

bureaucracy. This is the mission of the Oversight and Government

Reform Committee.

I will make a quick opening statement, just to be able to set up

what we are trying to accomplish today.

2

The relationship between American Indians and the Federal

Government is a relationship that is entirely unique in America.

For over a century, Federal programs have worked hand in hand

with tribal leaders to encourage economic development among Native American populations. A principal part of this hearing is to listen and to learn how and why unemployment remains high in Native American populations and how the Federal Government affects

economic development among the tribes.

The Bureau of Indian Affairs has promulgated regulations and

established programs that oversee lands, criminal justice, education, infrastructure specifically pertaining to tribal groups. Yet

tribal groups continue to struggle to grow their economies, provide

jobs for their members, and have access to fundamental building

blocks of a prosperous society.

According to the most recent available data, national unemployment rates for Indians was as high as 15.2 percent. On some reservations, unemployment rates reach as high as 50 percent. There

is bipartisan agreement on the many failures of the BIA. Information was retrieved from the GAO and OIG in addition to tribal

interviews on how BIA could better serve Americans Indians.

The Department of the Interior Office of the Inspector General

has written numerous reports about widespread, systemic failures

of the BIA and the Bureau of Indian Education, Two of the bureaus

within the Department of the Interior responsible for administering

programs designed to provide essential services to American Indians.

OIG investigators and auditors found disturbingly poor conditions in Indian schools prepared by the Bureau of Indian Education. Students attend classes sometimes in condemned buildings

that lack proper electrical and heating systems, no fire detection

systems, no running water. In some cases, buildings crumble

around children as they attend class.

The Office of Inspector General also found that school violence

was rampant, and students and staff were risking their safety and

sometimes their lives attending some of these schools. These conditions are clearly not conducive to learning.

The Bureau of Indian Affairs has been accused of mismanaging

taxpayer money by spending of tens of millions of dollars on failed

programs such as bungled conversion of the narrow band radio

technology. A BIA program can hamstring access to economic development by regulations and a process that hinders land leasing

for natural resources.

Tribes are often at the mercy of the Federal Government’s decisions and have little recourse for injecting their own opinions for

self-determination of these processes. In other instances, private

entities often pass up investment opportunity on Indian land because of a complicated 49-step process, which includes NEPA analysis required for development on Federal trust land.

Investment on tribal land is also impeded by fractionalization, a

process begun almost 150 years ago by the General Allotment Act

of 1887. Land parcels given to tribal members are owned in fractional portions by thousands of heirs. Both of these land management practices can present barriers to the development of resources

on Native American lands.

3

Given these problems, it is disturbing that BIA has a long history of nonresponsiveness to the Office of Inspector General and

other oversight entities and routinely ignores these reports and recommendations, while continuing to fall short on delivering the

basic services to 1.9 million American Indians.

This hearing is not designed with predetermined outcomes. We

are listening and looking for input. We look forward to your testimony today, and we thank you very much for attending and contributing your time.

As chair, I now recognize the distinguished ranking member, Mr.

Connolly, for his opening statement.

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank the chairman, and I thank you for holding these hearings.

Given the fact that we are already voting, I will just summarize

a couple of high points of my testimony.

Without objection, would the full statement be entered into the

record?

Mr. LANKFORD. Absolutely, without objection.

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank the Chair.

I think the chair has outlined some of the problems in the Native

American community and especially in management issues with

BIA, from education to waste, fraud, and abuse in the programs.

On the other hand, I would hope that we would broaden our consideration to also look at the disinvestment in the Native American

community occurring in this Congress.

If you look at H.R. 1, the continuing resolution that was passed

on a party line vote a month and a half ago, that cut Native American housing block grants by $200 million. It reduced Royal Utility

Service by 24 percent and eliminated entirely the Native American

youth program. I believe that those cuts are going to have serious

impacts in the Native American community throughout the United

States, and so I will be interested in hearing testimony about what

are those impacts and what other kinds of things do we need to

avoid.

I notice, for example, that an awful lot of Native American communities strongly urged us, especially western fishing groups are

urging us not to pass H.R. 872 deregulating pesticides in the Clean

Water Act. Yet, of course, we are bound to do that. That is going

happen, unfortunately.

I believe that we also ought to be looking at exploring opportunities for further collaboration between the Federal Government and

Native American communities. Clearly, the BIA could do more in

promoting tourism. Clearly, the BIA and other elements of the Federal Government could be collaborating with a lot of Native American communities on renewable energy resources, wind power, solar

power, and could actually take advantage of a natural resource we

all share, especially in many of those communities.

So I will be very interested in talking about job creation and in

taking advantage of some resources and opportunities that exist in

the community and where perhaps some of the decisions already

made in this Congress have perhaps unintentionally but nonetheless had a deleterious affect on the community.

Thank you so much and thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LANKFORD. You are very welcome.

4

Members will have 7 days to submit opening statements, any

other materials for the record; and other witnesses may submit

items for the record to be able to be included within the next 7

days.

We are going to take a short recess, and when we come back I

want to be able to introduce our guests that are here and swear

you in and begin the process for this. We will have other Members

that will join us at that time.

We expect about four votes, which that would mean probably

around 40 minutes or so. So if you need to be able to slip away and

be able to come back, you will have time to be able accomplish that.

And then our staff will be here, and they will be able keep you up

to date what is happening during the voting process.

Thank you for being here, and we stand in recess.

[Recess.]

Mr. LANKFORD. The subcommittee will come back into order.

We are going welcome our panel of guests. I am very honored

that you all chose to be able to here today and be able to share

your testimony with us, both oral and written testimony.

Ms. Mary Kendall is now the Acting Inspector General at the Department of the Interior. Thank you very much for being here. Ms.

Anu Mittal is the Director of the Natural Resources Environment

Team at GAO. Ms. Patricia Douville, council representative for the

Rosebud Sioux Tribe. And Mr. Ron Allen is the chairman of the

Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe.

So we really appreciate you all being here.

It is our tradition that we swear in witnesses before we begin

testimony. If you all would please stand and raise your right

hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. LANKFORD. Thank you. Let the record reflect the witnesses

answered in the affirmative. You may be seated.

In order to allow time for discussion, I ask you to be able to limit

your oral testimony to around 5 minutes or the lights that you will

see in front of you there will help count everything down for you.

Your entire written statement will be made part of the record,

in case you don’t get all of your oral testimony in.

I would like to begin with you, Ms. Kendall; and you may begin

your 5 minutes.

STATEMENTS OF MARY L. KENDALL, ACTING INSPECTOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; ANU K. MITTAL, DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT TEAM,

U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE; RODNEY M.

BORDEAUX, PRESIDENT, ROSEBUD SIOUX TRIBE, GIVEN BY

PATRICIA DOUVILLE, COUNCIL MEMBER, ROSEBUD SIOUX

TRIBE; AND RON ALLEN, CHAIRMAN, JAMESTOWN

S’KLALLAM TRIBE

STATEMENT OF MARY R. KENDALL

Ms. KENDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee for the opportunity to testify today about the challenges associated with economic development on tribal lands and creation of

jobs for American Indians.

5

Responsibility to American Indians has consistently been a top

management challenge for the Department of the Interior. The

myriad problems we have uncovered in BIA portray programs that

are sorely understaffed and poorly managed. The OIG has identified gross program inefficiencies at many levels at Indian Affairs

and in tribal land management of Federal funds.

Let me summarize some of the more recent work we have done

regarding the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

The Federal Government has long acknowledged the complexity

of land fractionation on Indian trust operations. Fractionation is

the result of dividing tribal land into parcels and allotting the parcels to individual Indians. The allotments are then subsequently divided among heirs through probate. With each generation, the

amount of fractionation increases. We are working with the Department as it develops a comprehensive plan that will guide its

efforts to significantly reduce fractionation. We found that $32 million in roads funds were distributed by one region annually, but only $3 to $4 million in roads projects had any

physical oversight or verification of work by BIA. In another instance, we determined that BIA paid out over $2.4

million for airport and roads improvement. Of that, we estimate

that $1.6 million had a been expended on a nonspecified road maintenance project and that as much as $200,000 may have been overbilled by a subcontractor. BIA also mismanaged a $9 million DOT funded ferryboat in Alaska that turned into a private boat tour.

In each of these instances, meaningful management oversight

was, quite simply, absent.

Nearly 7 years ago, the OIG conducted a thorough assessment of

Indian country detention facilities. Our assessment revealed a long

history of neglect and apathy on the part of BIA officials, which resulted in serious safety, security, and maintenance deficiencies at

the majority of the detention facilities in Indian country.

We recently completed an evaluation of BIA’s efforts to improve

staffing levels at their detention facilities, a critical issue directly

impacting safety and security and a key recommendation from our

2004 report. We have determined that, despite the focus of the seriousness of the problem and a 48 percent increase in funding, in excess of $64 million, BIA has failed to address the staffing shortages

and the state of these facilities remains largely unchanged.

In February 2010, the OIG issued an evaluation of school violence prevention measures in tribally operated schools. Overall, our

evaluation revealed that many schools are dangerously unprepared

to prevent violence and ensure the safety of students and staff.

That report on school violence was preceded by a report in August

2008, addressing preparedness for violence in BIE-operated schools.

Our findings were, not surprisingly, very similar.

In some other management weaknesses, 10 individuals, including

a BIA agency superintendent, have been indicted in connection

with a decade-long fraud scheme to embezzle funds from a tribal

credit program. Seven of the 10 indicted, including two other BIA

employees, have pleaded guilty to various changes related to the

fraud scheme. Total loss to the credit program is approximately

$1.2 million.

6

For 14 years, BIA funded a nonexistent fish hatchery. BIA continued to fund the hatchery even after a superintendent visited the

reservation and saw that the hatchery site had been converted into

office space.

Due to our resource limitations, the OIG refers many serious allegations of employee misconduct such as fraud, theft, retaliation,

and misuse of funds to the BIA on a regular basis with the expectation that the issues will be appropriately resolved or that poor

managers and other ethically challenged employees will be held accountable. Unfortunately, BIA more than any other bureau at Interior, has a history of failing to respond to the OIG referrals or, even

worse, completely disregarding the serious matters referred to

them.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to share this information with you. I will be happy to answer any questions you

or other members of the committee may have.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Kendall follows:]

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

Mr. LANKFORD. Thank you very much.

Director Mittal.

STATEMENT OF ANU K. MITTAL

Ms. MITTAL. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I

am pleased to be here today to participate in your hearing on challenges to the economic development in Indian country.

As you know, Indian tribes are among the Nation’s most economically distressed groups and often lack basic infrastructure.

Without such infrastructure, tribes often find it difficult to compete

successfully in the economic mainstream.

In addition, our past work has identified several unique circumstances that exist in Indian country that may create additional

uncertainties or impediments for both tribes and private companies

wishing to pursue economic activity in these areas. I would like to

briefly describe five of these unique circumstances for you.

The first unique circumstance that creates uncertainty relates to

the land-in-trust status for Indian lands. In 1934, the Indian Reorganization Act provided the Secretary of the Interior discretionary

authority to take land in trust on behalf of federally recognized

tribes or their members. Trust status helps secure these lands for

tribal use, and these lands are no longer subject to State and local

property taxes and zoning ordinances.

However, a 2009 Supreme Court decision has created significant

uncertainty regarding the land-in-trust status for a large number

of tribes. This is because the Supreme Court ruled that Interior can

only take land in trust for tribes that were under Federal jurisdiction in 1934. At this time, it is unclear how many pending landin-trust applications will be affected by this decision.

The second circumstance unique to Indian country relates to tribal environmental standards. The Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking

Water Act, and Clean Air Act authorized the EPA to treat Indian

tribes as States for the purposes of implementing these laws on

tribal lands. As sovereign governments, tribes want to exercise this

authority because they believe they are more familiar with their

own environmental needs. However, States are concerned that allowing tribes to set these standards could result in a patchwork of

standards within the State and potentially hinder a State’s overall

economic development plans.

Our past work has indeed found that this authority has resulted

in several disagreements between tribes and States. In addition,

more stringent tribal standards could also act as a disincentive for

companies who may choose to not operate their businesses on tribal

lands because of these standards.

The third circumstance relates to the use of special tax provisions for Indian reservations. One example of such a special tax

provision is allowing tribes to use tax-exempt bonds to finance essential government functions on reservations. Use of tax-exempt

bonds lowers borrowing costs for tribes and provides higher aftertax yields to investors. However, it is unclear to what extent this

provision has actually helped tribes, because the IRS has not yet

issued regulations defining what activities are allowable under this

provision. Without these regulations, tribes have limited guidance

14

to help them decide what function they can fund with tax-exempt

bonds.

The fourth circumstance relates to the complex process of obtaining rights of way across Indian lands. Securing rights of way is an

essential step to providing tribes with the critical infrastructure

that they need to support economic activity. However, obtaining

rights of way can be time-consuming and expensive, in part because Interior must approve these applications.

Several of the steps that service providers must take to get Interior’s approval involve negotiating with the landowners, who can be

individuals, multiple owners, or tribes. If an individual allotment

of Indian land is owned by multiple owners, sometimes reaching

into the hundreds, then this process can become even more onerous

because Federal regulations require that the majority of owners

must approve a right of way before it can be finalized.

The final unique circumstance I would like to discuss is the legal

and judicial systems that exist in Indian country. Having effective

legal and judicial systems is often considered a prerequisite to attracting private investment to tribal lands. This is because such

systems provide investors with assurance that disputes will be resolved fairly. However, the legal and judicial systems on tribal

lands are fairly complex and tribes also have sovereign immunity.

These circumstances can act as disincentives for businesses who

are trying to decide whether to operate on tribal or nontribal lands.

As you can see, Mr. Chairman, there are a number of unique circumstances that tribes and business owners must consider when

making decisions about whether or not to pursue economic development in Indian country. In some cases, these circumstances can act

as impediments.

This concludes my prepared statement. I’d be happy to answer

any questions.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Mittal follows:]

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

Mr. LANKFORD. We look forward to that conversation. Thank you,

Director.

Mrs. Douville, we will be honored to take your testimony now.

STATEMENT OF RODNEY M. BORDEAUX GIVEN BY PATRICIA

DOUVILLE

Ms. DOUVILLE. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and committee members. On behalf of President Rodney Bordeaux of the Rosebud Sioux tribe and

the Sicangu Lakota Oyate, I would like to thank you for convening

this hearing on regulatory barriers in American Indian job creation.

The Rosebud Sioux Indian reservation is located in south central

South Dakota. Our reservation consists of 900,000 plus acres of

rolling prairie grasslands, rich for agricultural production and filled

with other natural resources.

Our tribal president, Rodney Bordeaux, has now presided 6

years. The weight of his position bears heavily upon his heart. He

has seen entirely too much poverty and tragedy on a daily basis

among our people. This underlying poverty has caused many social

ills and issues. Now it has become so pronounced that an air of

hopelessness exists on the reservation, especially within our youth.

According to the 2010 census, the Rosebud reservation lies in the

fourth poorest county in our Nation. With your help, we intend to

change this.

Our natural resources here are many. We intend to use these resources to the best of abilities, from grazing cattle to farming leases

along with timber production.

In the future, we seek to build our economy from the renewable

energies that our resources provide, from wind development, hydropower, geothermal, to biomass into fuels.

The Rosebud Sioux tribe has been exploring the potential of wind

power since 1998. In March 2003 we built a 750 kilowatt Neg

Micon turbine capable of providing enough energy—electricity for

200 homes annually. We call this project the casino turbine project,

because it is located next to our tribal casino.

This effort was accomplished through the assistance of a Department of Energy grant and a rural utility service loan through the

U.S. Department of Agriculture. From this initial project, the Rosebud Sioux tribe accomplished a goal of having the first commercial

sale of wind energy by a tribal government in the United States,

and we are very proud to state that. Our partners in the accomplishment were Distributed General Inc. of Lakewood, CA

[DISGEN], and the Intertribal Council on Utility Policy [ICOUP].

After our first project, we continued our partnership with

DISGEN; and with their assistance we have applied for and were

awarded a second DOE grant in 2003 to conduct all the

preconstruction activities to develop a 30 megawatt wind farm near

the town of St. Francis, South Dakota, on tribal trust lands, called

the Owl Feather War Bonnet Wind Farm.

In 2008, 5 long years since the award, a FONSI was issued by

the Bureau of Indian Affairs; and a grant of use and lease agreement with DISGEN and OFWB LLC was also provided by the BIA

and the tribe. Despite insurmountable hurdles and delayed action

36

from BIA, we have had a shovel ready wind farm project since August 2008.

The remaining issue to overcome is the Power Purchase Agreement, PPA. This issue has severely tested the expertise of our developer, Dale Osborn of DISGEN, due to the uniqueness of the

project being on tribal trust lands and the distance to electric

loads.

Timing is an important issue in this matter, and the project

needs to be ready when an RPF is posted. If the BIA did not take

18 months to approve the grant lease agreement, the project could

have been operating and making a sorely needed revenue stream

for the tribe.

We had two draft PPAs in hand, but due to the lack of wind experience within BIA and the BIA extensive timeframes, the RFPs

for renewable energy from Basin Electric and then Nebraska Public

Power District has expired. DISGEN’s efforts to make this project

succeed are undeniable; and they have, in my view, exhausted all

efforts to work with NPPC and Southwest Power Pool to respond

to all RFPs applicable.

Unless we sell directly to NPPD, the project cannot get built.

Selling beyond NPPD, wheeling and tariff fee will drive the economics beyond the cost to build and repair the project, plus royalties. It is estimated that we can build this project at $66 million

if the project can ensure a PPA at 41⁄2 cents a kilowatt, escalating

at 21⁄2 percent annually with no wheeling or tariff fees imposed and

only if we sell to NPPD.

A power purchase agreement is the only remaining significant

issue that needs to be completed for OFWB. It has identified three

Federal energy buyers that may apply for ‘‘double RECs’’ points toward the renewable energy goals of the Energy Policy Act of 2005:

The first one is any Federal agency through the WAPA system that

take can the energy from the St. Francis substation; the Omaha

Public Power District that could sell the energy and renewable energy certificates to Offutt Air Force Base; and NPPD that could sell

the energy and RECs to the Federal customers. This project can be

constructed by the end of 2011.

The Federal Government can make this project happen if trust

responsibility is exercised in good faith. We are not asking for moneys to fund this project. We are asking the Federal Government to

assist us in efforts to secure a PPD, help us find this path.

We also ask that you live up to the doctrine of trust responsibility in assisting us to help ourselves in building our economy. Direct the Department of Energy to assist the Bureau of Indian Affairs to fine-tune and quicken the process of all economic development ventures on Federal Indian trust lands.

The current process is too time-consuming and bureaucratic,

most often killing any project immediately, as most investors don’t

want a project to be collecting dust on BIA’s shelf. This will eliminate an overly bureaucratic process to develop renewable energy.

The Rosebud Sioux tribe intends to utilize the revenue stream from

our commercial wind efforts to teach energy education, energy efficiency, and energy independence. The use of our natural resources

will help our people in the tribe to build self-sustainable businesses

from renewable energy sources.

37

The revenue brought forth will adjust our people’s drastic need

to upgrade our existing houses into energy efficient homes with renewable energy devices attached and to lessen our dependency on

the larger electrical grid, along with the employment and businesses for our people.

Thank you for your time. I wasn’t able to read the whole testimony, because it is quite lengthy, as you can tell. I was only speaking on one issue, but there are so many more that we have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bordeaux follows:]

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

Mr. LANKFORD. We will have several questions for you, and we

will be honored to have that testimony and put it into the written

record as well.

Ms. DOUVILLE. Thank you.

Mr. LANKFORD. No, thank you very much.

Chairman Allen, I am honored you are here. Pleased to receive

5 minutes of testimony from you.

STATEMENT OF RON ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Well, you have my testimony, and thank you for accepting it and

putting it in the record.

Again, I am Ron Allen, chairman of Jamestown S’Klallam tribe

located in western Washington State. I am also the treasurer for

the National Congress of American Indians, and I have served in

that organization for about 20 years. I’ve been the chairman for 34

years, and so I have been actively involved in Indian country from

east to west, north to south. I probably have been on more Indian

reservations than anybody, except maybe Senator Dan Inouye.

This topic of regulatory barriers for economic development and

job creation in Indian country is a very broad category. In our testimony, we share with you the success of my tribe, 565 Indian nations in America. We are from small, like my tribe, to larger ones,

like Rosebud Sioux; and we all have various different circumstances in which we want to advance our economic development and our independence.

The independent nature of the Indian communities is a longstanding historical relationship. The mere fact that there has become a dependency is not our fault. It is a fault of a system that

is a historical system. So the question of the regulatory barriers is

relative to what is the Federal Government’s obligation and responsibilities via treaties and statutes and just moral, legal responsibilities to the Indian communities as governments in our political system. We think it is deeply rooted and curved back into the Constitution.

But we also feel that we have made great success as the U.S.

Government has made a decision. Termination, assimilation are

policies that don’t work. Empowerment of tribal governments in

our communities and our people in order to advance economic development does work, and you have seen in the last 25 plus years

where it is becoming more and more successful.

You heard in previous testimony different examples and different

areas that need some work. Fraud and abuse issues that are out

there, yes, but relative to how the success is, it is a small area. So

we don’t want you to see a few small areas where we have gone

awry and judge how well we are doing categorically across America.

Success is going exceptionally well in economic development, but

we do have barriers. The GAO made the point of examples of access to finance. The Tribal Government Tax Status Act passed in

1984 created the authority of us to issue tax exempt bonds, to seek

revenues in order to advance economic development in our communities. But it does not treat us the same as other governments.

Well, that is not right. If you have cities coming in and they are

45

telling you we are not treated the same way as the States, you

would create a fair playing ground for them. So access to resources

and finances is very important to our communities.

The other comment that was made that you need to understand

is other bureaucracies’ impediments to us getting economic development or to our governments having stronger capacity. Well, the

issue is, do they have the resources? So if you look at our political

structure as governments, do we have the legal political infrastructure that is conducive to the private sector coming onto the Indian

reservations and conducting business. So do they have recourse or

do they have an incentive to come on—you know, tax benefits and

things of that nature. Whether it is energy or whether it is creating

widgets or whether it is advancing different resources—you have

timber or, like in my area, fisheries industry—what is their incentive to come into our reservations and do business?

My tribe shows you that we can be successful. There are other

tribes doing the same thing. We don’t want you to be skewed by

the gaming industry that has been quite successful, some of the

tribes. Out of the 555, 230 or 240 are in the gaming industry. Out

of that 230 and 240, there are only a couple—a triple dozen that

actually are the really successful ones you hear about, not the majority. They are more break even, even though they created jobs.

But what it has done that you need to understand is that it has

created a new kind of resource made available to the tribal government they now can invest into their communities and diversify

their economic development portfolio and do things that the Federal Government can’t do. So you see areas where tribes are becoming more resourceful and more independent, self-governance, a legislation that is very effective in us negotiating for our fair share

of the Federal system and let us manage it.

So if you ask yourself, how much would it cost us to help you become more independent? You don’t have enough money. You don’t

have enough money to deal with America’s problems today. We

can’t count on you to live up to those treaty commitments. But if

you empower us, if you help us become stronger as government, we

can get the job done and we can show you countless examples

where it is working.

So I am just touching on a few of the issues, Mr. Chairman. This

topic is a broad issue. There are people out there in the Federal

system who are trying and they have their own constraints and

there are regulatory impediments, no question about that, that

should be removed. But the issue is can you count on us to become

part of the health and economic fiber of America. Yes, for the most

part, we are in rural America; and rural America is an equal part

of the fiber of this Nation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Allen follows:]

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

Mr. LANKFORD. Thank you very much for your testimony.

Let me run through just a few questions that I will have and

briefly get some more context on it.

Chairman Allen, are you on a reservation tribe or nonreservation

tribe?

Mr. ALLEN. I am a reservation tribe. I am a small reservation.

We own about a thousand acres. Of that thousand acres, we have

only about 35 actually in reservation status.

Mr. LANKFORD. OK. So the other—so you have a thousand acres

there. Thirty-five you’re saying is in trust, is in reservation status;

that what you are saying?

Mr. ALLEN. Yes. And we have a lot of land that is in the process—it was noted earlier about the land in the trust process that

had an impediment because of the Carcieri Supreme Court decision. Once that is removed, then it opens up that opportunity for

that trust status, and many of us will reacquire it, whether it is

a ‘‘checkerboard’’ reservation or whether it is on a reservation like

ours trying to strengthen our homeland base.

Mr. LANKFORD. OK. You mentioned, Chairman Allen, about

empowerment’s better than forced assimilation. Can you give me a

specific example of what you would say, this is empowerment?

What would be helpful?

Mr. ALLEN. Relative to the assimilation policy?

Mr. LANKFORD. No, no, no. You were saying empowerment is better than forced assimilation by far. So what I am looking for is a

specific example of what you mean.

Mr. ALLEN. Probably the one that comes quick to mind is, as a

government, if the government—even though we have individuals

we are trying to enhance with regard to their business, as governments we have no economic base so we have no revenue base. So

our revenue base is based on the businesses that we generate. So

if we’re going to become independent from the Federal Government

and become less dependent on it, then that base has to be the foundation for these unrestricted resources that deal with the unmet

needs in our community.

Mr. LANKFORD. OK.

Mr. ALLEN. And so the issue for us would be the government has

to have the authority that resource is tax exempt. The rules, the

laws that recognize that unique stature of tribal corporations and

the revenue generated by it and the IRS recognition of those, that

authority, is a big deal to us and as well as the authority—the

unencumbered authority to secure tax-exempt loans for economic

development.

Mr. LANKFORD. Thank you.

Ms. Kendall, can I ask you a question about fractionalization

that came up earlier? Is there a list that is available to the tribes

of the land that is currently going through—obviously, people are

being contacted now based on what just occurred last year and the

purchase of lands and people are being contacted to see if they

want to be able to combine that out, correct?

Ms. KENDALL. Is your question are people being contacted?

Mr. LANKFORD. Well, yes. That is going on currently, is that correct?

Ms. KENDALL. I believe so.

64

Mr. LANKFORD. The question that I have is, are the tribes made

aware, because if the land is purchased back then it is ceded to the

tribe, is that correct, as trust lands?

Ms. KENDALL. That’s my understanding.

Mr. LANKFORD. Will the tribes be aware that this land is in process? Is there any system that you know of that is in place out there

so the tribes know here is the land going through the process and

there are 10 that are still interested and 20 that are not in the purchase process.

Ms. KENDALL. What my understanding is, is the Department has

presently a program that addresses fractionation. It’s been a very

small program up until the promise that the Cobell settlement has.

The Department for a number of reasons had not put a plan in

place until the approval goes through. They are thinking about it.

They are talking internally. But they have not done the kind of

proactive communication, I guess because they don’t want to sort

of preempt the finalization of settlement.

Mr. LANKFORD. OK, thank you. The question that we will try to

ask them directly on that and be able to track down that.

Director Mittal, a question for you on just dealing with the dynamics of all of these issues that you are raising. You raise some

terrific issues on how did we get involved in this. Some of this boils

down to BIA really has a responsibility to help businesses know

how to navigate through Indian law and dealing with their court

systems and unique dynamics of that so businesses will not feel

prohibited to be there. They will be encouraged to be there, and

someone can help them navigate through that.

Do you see anywhere out there a process that’s in place from BIA

to say we are going help any business, whether it is a McDonald’s

or whether it is a company that builds widgets, as Chairman Allen

mentioned before, that wants to be able to come here so that someone will help them through that process? Does that kind of program exist?

Ms. MITTAL. I am not aware of such a program—such a comprehensive program. There might be individual programs for specific parts within BIA, for example, to help them navigate the judicial system and things like that, but I’m not aware of a comprehensive program like you just described.

Mr. LANKFORD. Ms. Kendall, are you aware of any type of program like that would help outside businesses that want to be able

to invest in tribes know how to be able to navigate the process?

Ms. KENDALL. I am not, sir.

Mr. LANKFORD. That is one—we will try to be able to followup

on that one as well.

Director Mittal, you had also mentioned the patchwork of environmental standards. Can you talk about just the relationship, the

States—the State, the tribe, and the Federal all trying to work together, has that become an issue for businesses being able to come

in? And what are the solutions that are being formed on that?

Who’s finding a way to solve that, I guess I should say, or a success

story?

Ms. MITTAL. We haven’t actually looked at the relationship between those tribal standards and businesses. What our past work

has looked at is the conflict that creates between the tribal governVerDate 17-JUN-2003 12:25 Sep 22, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\KATIES\DOCS\68049.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
65

ments and the States. So those are the issues that we have seen

that, in the past, that because the tribes have this authority under

the three acts they have created conflicts with the States. For example, States don’t like the fact that the tribes are setting standards that are more stringent than the State standard. So that’s the

area we have focused on. We haven’t done any extensive work looking at the effect it has had on businesses.

Mr. LANKFORD. Thank you very much.

I am out of time, and I recognize the ranking member, Mr.

Connolly, for 5 minutes of questioning.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I see we have been joined by our full committee chairman. I

would be happy to yield to him, reclaiming my time when he is finished.

Mr. ISSA. That is very generous. The ranking member knows

that I generally am afraid to ask questions and then move to another subcommittee. So very wise of you, Gerry. But thank you.

I’ll be brief. I’ve got just a couple of questions, and they are sort

of between the two government entities here.

Ms. Kendall, you produce IG reports and conduct audits and investigations, report your finding to the BIA. Is BIA responsive to

the information you are sending them?

Ms. KENDALL. Not always. We do get responses primarily on the

audit side. We request responses from investigations that we provide to them.

Mr. ISSA. Why do you think they don’t respond with some predictability?

Ms. KENDALL. I wish I knew the answer, Mr. Chairman. I simply

don’t. One of the feelings we get in the Office of Inspector General

is they are simply outwaiting us.

Mr. ISSA. Hmm. You know, one of the things we like here is that

it is harder to outwait us. So it is an area we do want to ask you

to submit a good subsegment of ones that you feel that you need

a response for, haven’t gotten a response, or at least it would be

helpful, and let us know about them. Because we probably, in most

cases, want to know as badly as you do and will be able to ask

independently. Quite honestly, those would help educate us.

The chairman, the question that was actually more directed toward our U.S. Government representatives, but I would ask you,

do you think there is any way that your tribe could navigate

through business attempts with the current BIA support? Meaning,

if you didn’t hire your own lawyers at whatever expense you have

to pay for specialists that understand the tribal process with BIA,

do you think there is any chance you could do it without that expense?

Mr. ALLEN. Yes.

Mr. ISSA. Do you do it?

Mr. ALLEN. We are doing it.

Mr. ISSA. Including land-in-trust applications.

Mr. ALLEN. No, the land in the trust is a Federal function that

we can’t do. There are components of that process that we could

do, if they would accept it, including the environmental review

process. We do a lot of that for them. So that’s where a lot of the

Federal functions can be taken over by us that aren’t essential FedVerDate 17-JUN-2003 12:25 Sep 22, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\KATIES\DOCS\68049.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
66

eral functions. That would make the process move much smoother

and much faster.

Mr. ISSA. Let me do one followup question for either of the tribal

members. I have worked on land in trust for a number of the tribes

in my district and around the area. And even, for example, when

BLM is begging the tribe to take land that they don’t have the

funds to maintain, that are not developable but they have ancestral

significance, we go through a long, multiyear process to get it in

trust. And so even when it is in the Federal Government’s best interests to deliver it, even when the tribe is willing to pay for the

future maintenance, etc.—because I have some well-to-do tribes—

you can’t get the process quickly, in concert with the Natural Resources Committee, obviously the committee of primary jurisdiction.

I would ask all of you, do you believe that what we should be

doing is to come up with greater master plans of the aspirations

of tribes, commit land-in-trust designations so that if fee land is acquired at any time it has already gone through the process in a

master plan, the same way as a city often doesn’t have all of its

territory filled out, but it will stake the claim to that. I would take

it from both sides, if you could, because it’s an area I have never

been able to move along, but that I think would be part of that

changing of it. If you could literally clear those areas of aspiration

so that then when they become available through fee or other purposes you could acquire them.

Please, Chairman.

Mr. ALLEN. Well, first of all, the answer is yes, that most tribes

have a comprehensive land use plan that usually includes their existing reservation and their ceded territory where they resided.

And it can be a little complicated because in many of our communities it overlaps into our sister tribes. So we have to be respectful

that our comprehensive plan, land plan, we want to acquire lands

for multiple reasons—economic development, cultural reasons, natural resources, etc.—that may overlap.

Some areas very clearly is in our territory of the tribe, but some

will overlap into other territories that our sister tribe will have an

interest in, and we have to resolve those issues.

But there are some issues within the process that we have to be

careful. The U.S. Government does not want to take land into

trust. If there is any liability—I mean any liability—it will not take

any land in trust. So we have to go through—that’s why sometimes

the process takes a long time.

There may be something identified, environmentally or so forth,

that the U.S. Government says we have a problem. Until we get

that resolved so that I have absolutely no liability, this land will

not be taken into trust. That has been the biggest hiccup in the

process—the Carcieri problem that we currently are emerging.

Many tribes do not have that comprehensive plan in place, and

they should be encouraged to do that. Because their ceded territory

is often much greater than their reservation base.

Mr. ISSA. My time has expired.

In the case of California, where they lost all of their ancestral

tribes, they were part of the mission system in most cases, and

even if they got it they were often checkerboards where these fell

67

out during the allotment period. That’s the area we have dealt with

a lot, where when you buy a piece within your contiguous border

you still have to go through an extensive and expensive process to

get it in trust.

Any other comments? Because my time has expired. But if there

is anything else the committee should know about expediting that

process in order to allow for, particularly, beneficial use?

Mr. Connolly, I am in your debt. I yield back.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

With the permission of the chair——

Mr. LANKFORD. Absolutely. I thank you for your courtesy on that.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Absolutely.

While the chairman is still here, I would like to followup on his

question to you, Ms. Kendall. I am not sure I understood your answer.

You responded to Chairman Issa, when he said are you getting

cooperation from BIA, you seemed to suggest no, and you seemed

to suggest the reason you were given or the reason you understood

that lack of cooperation was they were waiting you out. A, what

kind of cooperation are you getting or not getting? How have you

communicated to them that won’t be acceptable? And ‘‘waiting you

out’’ meaning what? You are the Acting Inspector General and

maybe when they get somebody else, he or she will be friendlier?

Ms. KENDALL. No, not at all, sir. This has been a longstanding

problem with BIA. And much of it has—not necessarily with our

audits or investigations, but we refer a lot of allegations that we

receive back to bureaus, and we do that with BIA as well. We probably receive—almost 50 percent of the allegations we receive relate

to BIA. And so——

Mr. CONNOLLY. The whole Department of the Interior?

Ms. KENDALL. Yes. And so a good portion we will not investigate

ourselves or conduct an audit ourselves.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Could I just interrupt you one more time just to

make sure we all understand what you are saying. Fifty percent of

the allegations—allegations implies fraud or a crime.

Ms. KENDALL. Allegations of wrongdoing one way or the other,

yes. So I can say affirmatively that, in the matters that we refer

to them to respond to themselves, they have been very lacking in

getting back to us and being responsive. And, in fact, we have just

really, in a sense of frustration, decided we will close these matters

out as nonresponsive and start reporting them to Congress in our

semiannual report.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you. And you are the only IG with jurisdiction over the BIA?

Ms. KENDALL. Yes, sir.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you.

Chairman Allen and Ms. Douville, please feel free to comment as

well, if you wish.

I just want to tick off some of the items that were cut or eliminated in H.R. 1, the continuing resolution passed by party line vote

here in the House:

$581.3 million reduction for the State and local law enforcement

assistance account which tribal courts and detention facilities receive funding from.

68

$17.9 million reduction to Office of Special Trustee for American

Indians.

$9 million decrease to the BIA construction account.

$900,000 reduction to the Indian land and water claim settlement miscellaneous payments account.

Reductions proposed for Labor, Education, Health and Human

Services serving American Indians, Alaska natives, including Head

Start, tribal colleges, Native Americans serving nontribal institutions, tribally controlled postsecondary vocational institutions, and

the list goes on. A decrease of $139.3 million to the IHS facilities account, which

also affects tribal lands, and $200 million in reductions to the Native American housing block grant program.

Would those reductions have any impact at all on the quality of

life on reservations or tribal lands?

Mr. ALLEN. Yes, absolutely. You know, there is no community in

America that is more underserved than American Indian communities. All you have to do is look at the fact that our average unemployment rate in Indian country is in the mid-30’s, just average.

You go to Rosebud and Pine Ridge and some of these other communities where it is in the 70’s and 80’s. It is ridiculous.

The fact that these Head Start programs or these school construction programs or roads programs or the reduction of loan

guarantee programs—all disincentives to invest in our Indian communities. We don’t have the physical infrastructure to take care of

our it community needs.

So it is not just about economic development. It is the community

infrastructure to be able to take care of our families and our kids

and to educate them and enhance their abilities, to care for their

needs.

Public safety, you want to talk about public safety issues? You

must know about the atrocities going on in our communities. The

violence against Indian women and families and our kids is just

terrible. It is just a sad commentary of what is going on in society.

So we know that Congress is wrestling over the deficit reduction, but we can tell you when you look at the $3 trillion budget relative

to where we are, the Indian communities, the resources—the limited resources is a drop in the bucket. And we know they are shaving them everywhere they can.

So I am telling you it is going to have a serious detrimental impact to what marginal success we achieved in the last couple of

years. It has been stagnant. If you look at the budget and the way

we have been moving forward, the most significant increases are

in health care. But even in the significant increases in health care

you can see the fact that we are still way behind when you measure every health care category, that you measure the health status

of our communities and our people from the kids to the elders. And

so it is a struggle for us.

We see those programs—HUD program, go after a whole bunch

of programs, community programs and economic development programs, natural resource enhancement programs, etc., that are out

there. Each one of those programs all make a difference in our

communities; and we are pushing to become stronger, more vibrant. They all contribute and interface and are interrelated.

69

So the answer is, yes, it is a detriment, a setback. It is disappointing.

Because we think we are getting traction with Congress, and we

think Congress is listening to us, that we have some problems and

needs, you know, in appropriations. The chairman says, we have a

problem here. We are underserving Indian communities so we are

going to hold the line. We are going, yes, hold the line, but also we

are missing some serious needs here. Whether it is Interior or

HUD or DOL or Labor or Commerce, each have a role in enhancing

the welfare of our governments and our communities.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you.

Ms. DOUVILLE. Yes, all these cuts in H.R. 1, they are highly devastating to our tribes, especially to mine. Historically, we have

never been funded at 100 percent; and that is the government trust

responsibility to us.

Cutting the housing, the IHS, we have programs that need this

money. We have kids, children that depend on a lot of this. And

that is our future. That’s what we consider sacred, is our children.

And cuts like this make it so hard, make it even harder for us. And

the hopelessness that I have talked about earlier, it just pronounces it more.

So with these cuts, if the government would live up to their trust

responsibility, give us the 100 percent that we need and we are

asking for, then we won’t be a burden, and that would empower us

to be just as equal as any other Nation within our Nation.

So, yeah, this will hurt us, and it is going to hurt us. But we are

strong. We will survive. We survived for hundreds of thousands of

years. But with your help our quality of life would be better.

Mr. LANKFORD. Ms. Kendall, earlier, you were talking about

some of the issues of waste—sorry, I was referencing—Mr. Labrador. I apologize for that. Mr. Labrador.

Mr. LABRADOR. You are fine, Mr. Chairman. I actually yield the

time to you.

Mr. LANKFORD. Thank you.

You referenced earlier several issues that were coming up where

funding had been allotted. As I recall, you referenced a 48 percent

increase in funding for detention centers. Than when you went

back years later there was no change. Are there instances where

funding is being allotted, how is that used? What are you finding

in these situations?

Ms. KENDALL. The matter I am referring to specifically had to do

with staffing in Indian detention centers. And, as a result, I believe

in part of our 2004 report where staffing was one of the multiple

concerns, Congress appropriated BIA a considerable amount of

money—I think a 48 percent increase, about $62 million or so. And

what our effort was was to go see how they spent that money; and,

unfortunately, we could not determine how they accounted for it.

And very little, if anything, was done to improve staffing.

Mr. LANKFORD. The frustration that is experienced here is that

there are so many different variant issues that we are dealing

with. There is just a multitude of both legal—with land issues,

with relationship issues with cities and with States and with the

Federal Government that we are making job creation incredibly

complex.

70

And the greatest need that I see on the outside of this, and that

is why I am asking coming in, is not necessarily additional dollars.

It is the capacity for jobs to grow on their own and to be, as you

mentioned before, Chairman Allen, self-sustaining and not be dependent, but to be a fully functioning national economy within the

system that is functioning there on the tribe. To where tribes, as

you mentioned before, the 230-some odd tribes that run casinos,

great, they are running a functioning business, whether that be a

wind farm to try to figure out the process of how to get that up

so it can be sold and so that jobs can exist there, or whether that

be a functioning business that is high tech, low tech, manufacturing, whatever it may be. We have to figure out the systems and

the processes that need to be in place so that this can thrive on

its own.

Let me ask you, Ms. Douville, the type of jobs that exist among

the tribe and on tribal lands, you mentioned the wind farms, great.

You mentioned the casino that you have. What other jobs and industries or business that are there onsite?

Ms. DOUVILLE. Right now, we have a lot of convenience stores,

grocery stores, schools. Our tribal government, of course. And we

employ about 500 to 600 people on the reservation.

Mr. LANKFORD. Through the tribal government?

Ms. DOUVILLE. Through the tribal government.

We also have the Bureau of Indian Affairs, our agency there. I

am not sure how much they employ or how many of the employees

are Native American.

Mr. LANKFORD. How many members of the tribe that live locally?

Ms. DOUVILLE. That live locally? Approximately 30,000.

Mr. LANKFORD. OK.

Ms. DOUVILLE. For our tribe.

But one thing that is highly pronounced on our reservation is

that our unemployment rate is above 85 percent. So a majority of

our people are unemployed. A lot of them are trying to be self-employed with the arts and crafts and the resources that we do have

and the talents that they do have to try to get some type of business off the ground. Yet, still it is hard.

Mr. LANKFORD. Sure. Obviously, we are scratching the surface.

This is an initial hearing, and that is what this is, is fact-finding

and hearing and to initiate the process and then to disburse this

to other committees that are engaged with directly on it. You have

identified multiple areas, both written and orally, on it. If there is

one area to look at and say this one has to be resolved first, could

you identify one to say this is the key that has to be resolved first

from the Federal Government side, to make sure that we are pulling back any impediment to job growth within any of these tribal

areas?

Ms. MITTAL. I will go first.

I think the land-in-trust issue has to be resolved. Because until

the tribes have a secure land base, they cannot undertake the type

of activities that the two tribal members have talked about. They

cannot conduct grazing, they cannot conduct forestry, they cannot

conduct business or gaming activities. They need to have a secure

land base.

71

And until this uncertainty that the Carcieri decision has created

is resolved, what we are concerned about is that more and more

tribes are going to come to Congress looking for legislative solutions to this problem, rather than going through the BIA application process.

Mr. LANKFORD. How do you see that being resolved? Is there

something that you look and say this is going to have to be resolved here?

Ms. MITTAL. I think there could be legislative solutions. There

could be court decisions that help resolve it. But there are lots of

different ways it can be resolved. It is a definitional issue. We need

to know what exactly does it mean by Federal jurisdiction in 1934.

So that could be resolved either in the courts or by Congress.

Mr. LANKFORD. Well, the courts are down the streets, so we will

have to resolve it with legislative solutions here.

So I appreciate your testimony and your time, and other folks

that are here, and would be very pleased to be able to receive, if

you have additional comments and thoughts that you may have

that you want to be able to submit to Congress for us to disperse

to the other areas, you have 7 days to be able to get those things

back to us. So as things come up, we will be very pleased to be able

to contact you with followup questions as they come up from there.

I am very grateful for your time, and I apologize that we had a

vote right in the middle of it and much delayed the process we

were going with.

Unless there are additional thoughts and comments on it, this

hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 4:12 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ