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

75–282 PDF 2012

S. HRG. 112–620

DEFICIT REDUCTION AND JOB CREATION:

REGULATORY REFORM IN INDIAN COUNTRY

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

DECEMBER 1, 2011

Printed for the use of the Committee on Indian Affairs

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii, Chairman 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Vice Chairman 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

JON TESTER, Montana 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

LORETTA A. TUELL, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

DAVID A. MULLON JR., Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on December 1, 2011 ........................................................................ 1

Statement of Senator Akaka ................................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Barrasso ............................................................................... 2

Statement of Senator Franken ............................................................................... 3

Statement of Senator Udall .................................................................................... 4

WITNESSES

Blackwell, Geoffrey C., Chief, Office of Native Affairs and Policy, Federal 

Communications Commission ............................................................................. 13

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 14

Casias, Hon. Pearl E., Chairman, Tribal Council, Southern Ute Indian Tribe .. 51

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 51

Cromwell, Hon. Cedric, Chairman, Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe ........................ 48

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 50

Keel, Hon. Jefferson, President, National Congress of American Indians .......... 23

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 25

O’Brien, Doug, Deputy Under Secretary for Rural Development, U.S. Department of Agriculture .............................................................................................. 5

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 6

Shelly, Hon. Ben, President, Navajo Nation ......................................................... 44

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 45

APPENDIX

Black Eagle, Hon. Cedric, Chairman, Crow Tribe, prepared statement ............. 59

(1)

DEFICIT REDUCTION AND JOB CREATION: 

REGULATORY REFORM IN INDIAN COUNTRY 

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 1, 2011

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:15 p.m. in room 

628, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Akaka,

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. AKAKA,

U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII 

The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will come to order. Aloha and 

welcome to all of you, to this Committee’s oversight hearing on Deficit Reduction and Job Creation: Regulatory Reform in Indian 

Country. 

Today, our Country finds itself in very difficult economic times. 

Many Native communities have been hit hard by the economic 

downturn and stagnant job market. 

Unfortunately, such challenges are not new to Indian Country, 

where double-digit unemployment rates have always soared high 

above the national average. In some Native communities, unemployment is as high as 75 percent. Can you believe it? 

Tribes have difficult and unique challenges in developing their 

economies. They are not equal with State and local government in 

their ability to access essential financial tools such as tax-exempt 

bonds. 

Native communities also suffer from a lack of sufficient infrastructure, especially broadband, which makes it difficult to provide 

housing, health care and education for a qualified work force. 

Finally, Tribes suffer from disproportionate regulatory hurdles 

that prevent energy and other economic development projects. 

Tribes need strong local economies, not just to provide jobs and 

services to their own members, but also to help support families in 

surrounding communities. Tribes are often the largest local employer as well as the largest purchaser of goods and services. They 

also are often in a unique position to drive local economic growth 

and job creation. But they need the right tools to do that. 

That is why we are here today. Federal agencies can play a very 

important role in helping Tribes overcome these challenges, support Tribal financing and infrastructure development. They can 

also help reform administrative policies and regulations to reduce 

barriers to economic development. 

2

At a time when deficit reduction is a national priority, we must 

make our current Federal programs work better. We look forward 

to hearing testimony today from our Federal and Tribal witnesses 

about how our agencies can work more efficiently and effectively to 

support Tribal economic development and spur job creation. 

And now I would like to ask our Vice Chair, Senator Barrasso, 

for any opening remarks that he may have. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,

U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for 

holding this very important hearing. I agree with your comments 

and I appreciate your leadership on this. Because wherever I go in 

Wyoming and meet with leaders of the Eastern Shoshone and the 

Northern Arapaho Tribes, they continue to point out and we continue to visit about how important economic development is in Wyoming’s Indian communities, which is exactly what you have said 

for the entire Nation. 

Certainly on the Wind River Reservation, economic development 

is often another term for energy development. Energy development 

on the Wind River Reservation means jobs. And it means incomes 

for families, it means paying the bills, putting food on the table, 

just as you have said, Mr. Chairman. 

Like many other reservations, the Wind River communities have 

significant challenges when it comes to economic development. 

Some of them are in remote locations. Metropolitan areas with 

large markets are far away. Employment opportunities are much 

too limited. Some reservations are blessed with a wealth of natural 

resources, energy, mineral resources, agriculture, timber, and other 

resources. Under applicable law, these resources are supposed to be 

managed in a way that benefits the Tribes and the members of the 

Tribes. 

Sometimes, however, Federal laws and regulations and the way 

that they are implemented seem to do more harm, I am seeing, at 

least, seem to do more harm than good. And I will cite some examples. I recently introduced, and Mr. Chairman, you co-sponsored, 

what is titled the Indian Tribal Energy Development and Self-Determination Act Amendments of 2011. Before doing that, we engaged in a lot of consultation in Indian Country. The one thing we 

heard time and again is that the energy lease approval process is 

tied up on red tape and it takes too long. The NEPA process was 

a major contributor, we heard, to this problem. Some stakeholders 

urged us to simply exempt Indian lands from NEPA. These are 

similar to the complaints that we heard prior to the introduction 

of the HEARTH Act, which you and I have co-sponsored, working 

together. The Energy Bill and the HEARTH Act represent efforts 

to reform Federal laws that are inhibiting development that we 

will need in Indian Country. 

Statutory laws are not the problem, however. Federal regulations 

and agency implementation of the statutes are often significant factors as well. Today, we are going to hear testimony from President 

Ben Shelly. We read through his written testimony on behalf of the 

Navajo Nation, and it tells a compelling story about the impact of 

EPA actions in Indian Country. So I urge all of our members and 

3

everyone in the audience to listen closely to what he has to say 

about the EPA’s regional haze rule in the Four Corners area. We 

need to be reminded that there are definite, real-life consequences 

to over-zealous regulations. 

One last example I will mention as involving EPA is the recently-promulgated Minor Source Rule for Indian Country. That is 

a rule that significantly affects oil and gas activities in Indian 

Country under the Clean Air Act. That rule was adopted in August 

of this year. Most of the rule doesn’t go into effect for three years. 

That delay is crucial to have a smooth implementation process. 

Unfortunately, the new rule went into immediate effect for any 

new development of so-called synthetic minor sources. And it is my 

understanding that neither the EPA nor industry is prepared for 

that. And we are hearing from some corners of Indian Country that 

this will cause real problems. 

EPA easily could have avoided these problems by simply postponing the effective date for the entire rule. So I can’t fathom why 

they chose to bifurcate the effective date of the rule. 

I could go on, Mr. Chairman, but I think I made my points. In 

these times of economic hardship, as you said in your statement 

today, we should be looking for ways to encourage economic development, not inhibit it or prevent it. So I look forward to hearing 

from the witnesses and I thank you for your continued leadership, 

Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Barrasso. You 

certainly have made your points clearly. 

Now I would like to call on Senator Al Franken for his remarks. 

STATEMENT OF HON. AL FRANKEN,

U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to 

thank you and the Vice Chairman for holding this important hearing about the relationship between economic development in Indian 

Country and Federal Government programs. Economic development is really the key to every community’s success. If there is economic development, there are jobs. Where there are jobs, there is 

hope, there is dignity and a sense of purpose. There is housing for 

families and kids have a better chance for a good education. 

But if economic development is hindered, all those are at risk. 

Tribes face a host of hurdles when trying to bring economic development to their communities, from a lack of infrastructure and duplicative regulations to problems accessing Federal programs and 

capital. There are definitely ways to improve Federal Government 

regulations and programs. I was pleased to see that as directed by 

President Obama, the Department of Interior intends to reduce the 

regulatory burden on Indian Country. In its plan for retrospective 

regulatory review it has highlighted its goal to save 50,000 hour of 

unnecessary clerical paperwork. I hope that is on more than one 

guy. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator FRANKEN. By streamlining administration for Indian 

Country, more agencies should follow that lead. 

With limited resources, we also need to look at ways to increase 

flexibility and improve collaboration across programs and agencies. 

4

I hope that in today’s hearing we can look at what is working and 

what is not in Indian Country. One thing we know for sure is that 

the active involvement of Tribes is absolutely critical. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about innovative 

ways to create jobs and drive economic development in Indian 

Country. I thank all of the witness for coming today. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Franken. 

And now I will call on Senator Tom Udall for his opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL,

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Chairman Akaka, and thank you for 

holding this important hearing. I think we have all recognized how 

important it is to have economic development in Indian Country. 

I want to echo what all the others have said before me. 

I hope today we can identify some areas where Congress and the 

Administration can work with Tribal communities to remove regulatory roadblocks and bolster economic development. 

I would like to welcome the President of the Navajo Nation, Ben 

Shelly. He is here today and I believe the first lady, Martha Shelly, 

is also with us here in the audience. 

There have been some impressive infrastructure and economic 

developments in the last decade as more broadband has spread into 

the Navajo Nation. Housing efforts have been redoubled and those 

have been very successful. And more economic opportunities have 

emerged. The Navajo Nation has bold and aggressive plans to increase renewable energy development, expand infrastructure, from 

rural water pipelines to roads and to housing. I look forward to 

hearing from President Shelly on some of these issues and on areas 

where we can work with him and other Tribal leaders to build 

Tribal economies. 

This hearing is also a good opportunity for the Committee to reemphasize the vital need to ensure, through the coming years of 

deficit reduction, Tribal programs are not sacrificed. The Federal 

Government has a trust obligation to Native Americans to provide 

vital services. As budgets are tightened, this obligation should not 

be diminished. I would urge my colleagues in Congress to remember this commitment to Tribal nations as we move forward on stabilizing the Federal budget. 

Thank you, Chairman Akaka, again, and I look forward to hearing from out witnesses before us and then the panel after that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Udall. 

With that, I welcome the witnesses to our hearing today. I appreciate all of you for traveling to be with us today and look forward 

to hearing your testimony on this very important matter. 

I ask you to limit your oral testimony to five minutes. Your full 

written testimony will be recorded. Also, the record for this hearing 

will remain open for two weeks from today, so we welcome written 

comments from any interested parties. Thank you very much. 

I would like now to introduce Mr. Doug O’Brien, Deputy Under 

Secretary for Rural Development for the United States Department 

of Agriculture, and Mr. Geoffrey Blackwell, Chief of the Office of 

5

Native Affairs and Policy for the Federal Communications Commission. 

Mr. O’Brien, please proceed with your remarks. 

STATEMENT OF DOUG O’BRIEN, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY 

FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

AGRICULTURE 

Mr. O’BRIEN. Thank you. Chairman Akaka, Vice Chairman 

Barrasso and members of the Committee, it is my pleasure to join 

you today to discuss USDA’s role in supporting economic development on Tribal lands, and our efforts to improve the delivery of 

these programs. 

USDA programs span a wide range of areas, including those that 

directly affect farmers, conservation on private lands, the Forest 

Service lands, international trade, food safety, nutrition, housing, 

business development and much more. Secretary Vilsack is committed to a USDA that faithfully serves Tribal organizations and 

individual American Indians and Alaska Natives. 

The Office of Tribal Relations, located within the Office of the 

Secretary, works to ensure that relevant programs and policies are 

easy to understand, accessible and developed in consultation with 

the American Indian and Alaska Native constituents. President 

Obama signed an executive order establishing the first White 

House Rural Council on June 9, 2011. The White House Rural 

Council, chaired by Secretary Vilsack, coordinates programs across 

Government to encourage public-private partnerships, to promote 

further economic prosperity and improve the quality of life in rural 

communities nationwide and has focused on issues important to 

Tribal communities. 

USDA is also addressing civil rights complaints for new and 

stronger relationships with the farming and ranching community. 

In October of 2010, Secretary Vilsack announced the Keepseagle 

settlement with Native American farmers that, beyond the monetary award, very importantly features significant technical assistance. 

As the Deputy Under Secretary of Rural Development, I would 

like to spend the balance of my time this morning talking specifically about this mission area and its associated programs. Rural 

Development is a collaborative agency with programs that build 

upon one another. We offer programs that support essential public 

facilities and services that promote economic development in rural 

areas. Rural Development’s network of staff in 47 State-level offices 

and 500 area offices work closely with Tribes and dedicated partners. Staffs in local offices deliver programs for all three of Rural 

Development’s agencies: the Rural Business and Cooperative Service; Rural Housing Service; and the Rural Utility Service. We also 

maintain a Native American Tribal coordinator to assist Tribes 

with their development interests at our State offices. 

From 2001 to 2010, Rural Development assistance benefitting Tribes totaled more than $2.7 billion, including $400 million to expand broadband access in Tribal communities. We continue to support Tribal businesses in 2011 and look forward to supporting them 

in the future. 

6

For example, through the Rural Business Enterprise Grant Program, the Montana Indian Business Alliance received a grant to 

provide business technical assistance to members to the Indian 

Tribes of Montana. The Wind River Development Fund in Wyoming also received a grant to conduct a feasibility study for the development of a joint venture construction project to build a new 

health clinic in Fort Washakie to serve residents of the Wind River 

Indian Reservation. 

While we have been proud to partner with Tribal communities 

and members on important projects, we believe that we can do better. We have utilized the Tribal consultation process as directed by 

President Obama in 2009 to learn about how we can adjust our 

programs to better fit the needs of Indian Country. In 2010 and 

2011, Rural Development conducted 20 direct government to government consultations, 7 regional consultations and countless other 

roundtables, listening sessions and meetings. Not only have we listened in the consultations, we have already acted on the wise counsel provided. 

For example, we expanded the definition of small business in the 

Rural Energy for America program, a program that provides grants 

and loans for renewable energy production, to explicitly include 

Section 17 corporations and other similar Tribal corporations as eligible applicants. Rural Development recently released an administrative notice to clarify the eligibility of Amerind Risk Management 

Corporation as an insurer for single family housing direct loan programs. 

Historically, insurance and insurance-like products have been 

unavailable, difficult to access or expensive on trust lands owned 

by Tribes and Tribal members. Our efforts in working with Amerind to bring them into the insurer pool for rural Development 

projects will make access to our housing funding projects more 

amenable in Indian Country. 

Rural Development’s programs are a critical component to supporting, growing and ultimately sustaining Tribal communities. 

While Rural Development program funding for fiscal year 2012 has 

been reduced, we are committed to continuing to improve our support and partnership through consultation in Tribal communities. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I look forward to addressing any questions that you have, Chairman, or any 

of the other members have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. O’Brien follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DOUG O’BRIEN, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY FOR RURAL

DEVELOPMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Chairman Akaka, Vice Chairman Barrasso and Members of the Committee, it is 

my pleasure to join you today to discuss USDA’s role in supporting economic development on tribal lands. USDA Programs span a wide range of areas, including 

international trade, food safety, housing, business development, telecommunications, 

water systems, crop insurance, school lunches and more. I encourage tribal leaders 

to be innovative in thinking about how to best utilize USDA’s diverse resources to 

better serve their communities. 

Secretary Vilsack is committed to a Department of Agriculture (USDA) that faithfully serves Tribal organizations and individual American Indians and Alaska Natives. The Office of Tribal Relations (OTR), located within the Office of the Secretary, works to ensure that relevant programs and policies are efficient, easy to unVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:52 Nov 26, 2012 Jkt 075282 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\75282.TXT JACK
7

derstand, accessible, and developed in consultation with the American Indian and 

Alaskan Native constituents they impact. 

OTR is the primary point of contact for Tribal issues within USDA, and is responsible for:

• Government-to-government relations between USDA and tribal governments; • Advising Secretary Vilsack on Tribal issues and concerns; Tribal Consultation; • Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA); • Issues impacting Tribal members; and • Working cooperatively and collaboratively across USDA to build an integrated 

approach to issues, programs, and services addressing the needs of American 

Indians and Alaskan Natives.

We believe that the efforts and commitment of OTR is guiding the Department 

towards a more flexible approach in addressing the needs on Tribal lands. 

Since President Obama’s 2009 Memorandum on Consultation, a dedicated team 

from across USDA has been working to re-examine existing departmental policies 

and regulations regarding collaboration and consultation. We have held a series of 

joint consultation events where we heard from tribal representatives about program 

rules and challenges to utilizing USDA programs in Indian Country to better understand the specific needs of Tribes across the country. Staff continues to communicate with tribal leaders, members and organizations on a daily basis. In addition, 

on June 9th, President Obama signed an Executive Order establishing the first 

White House Rural Council. The White House Rural Council will coordinate programs across government to encourage public-private partnerships to promote further economic prosperity and quality of life in rural communities nationwide. 

Chaired by Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, the Council is responsible for 

providing recommendations for investment in rural areas and will coordinate Federal engagement with a variety of rural stakeholders, including tribal governments. 

The Council will break down silos and find areas for better collaboration and improved flexibility in government programs and will work closely with state, local and 

tribal governments, non-profits, private companies, and to leverage federal support. 

In furtherance of this objective, in August the Rural Council convened the White 

House Native American Business Leaders Roundtable with tribal representatives, 

economic development experts, and Federal policymakers. At this listening session, 

participants discussed challenges tribal businesses face, including access to capital, 

job skills and training shortfalls, and limited broadband deployment and adoption 

in tribal communities. 

The feedback and insight gained by my colleagues are being incorporated into our 

ongoing efforts to address economic growth in Indian Country, and USDA looks forward to all we can achieve with our partners in the Federal Government and in Indian Country to create more opportunity in Native American communities. 

USDA is also addressing civil rights complaints that go back decades to pave the 

way for new and stronger relationships with the farming and ranching community. 

In October of 2010, Secretary Vilsack announced the Keepseagle settlement with 

Native American farmers. The OTR reminded Native American farmers and ranchers in July that those who believe they are entitled to funds under the Keepseagle 

settlement must file a claim no later than December 27, 2011. Up to $760 million 

will be made available in monetary relief, debt relief, and tax relief to successful 

claimants. 

Furthermore, USDA continues to be an active participant on the Infrastructure 

Task Force to address the ongoing need for safe drinking water and basic sanitation 

in Indian Country. The combined funding from the Task Force Agencies—USDA, 

Environmental Protection Agency, Indian Health Service and the Department of 

Housing and Urban Development—between 2003 and 2009 provided 80,941 tribal 

homes access to safe drinking water and 43,562 tribal homes access to basic sanitation. These numbers demonstrate significant progress made by the Task Force agencies, but we recognize that more work is needed. To this end, the Task Force is refocusing the access goal around the principle that ‘‘access to safe drinking water and 

basic sanitation shall be provided through entities that are sustainable and implemented through integrated agency planning that links the development goals of the 

tribe with the need for such services and infrastructure.’’ This refocused principle 

fits well with USDA Rural Development programs that are committed to improving 

the economy and quality of life in rural areas. 

As the Deputy Under Secretary of Rural Development, I’d like to spend the balance of my time this morning specifically talking about this mission area and its 

associated programs. 

Rural Development is a collaborative agency with programs that build upon one 

another ultimately creating efficiencies for the taxpayers and the communities that 

8

we serve. Rural Development provides financial programs to support essential public facilities and services such as water and sewer systems, housing, health clinics, 

emergency service facilities, electric, telephone and broadband services. Rural Development promotes economic development in rural areas by providing loans, loan 

guarantees, grants, and other assistance to applicants, including tribes, tribal members, individuals and families, banks, and community-managed lending pools. To 

better serve tribes and to ensure Rural Development investments flow onto tribal 

lands, it is both pragmatic and necessary to work in cooperation with tribal councils, 

adhere to tribal ordinances and laws, and partner with other federal agencies such 

as the Indian Health Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Department of 

Housing and Urban Development. 

Rural Development has exceptional staff in our network of 47 state-level field offices and 500 area offices across the rural landscape working closely with tribes and 

dedicated partners in the for-profit and non-profit sectors. Rural Development staff 

in the local offices delivers programs for all three agencies in the Rural Development mission area—Rural Business and Cooperative Services, Rural Housing Service and Rural Utilities Services. By being located in rural communities, we are able 

to cultivate important relationships with tribal leaders, tribal professional staff, 

lenders, realtors, community-based organizations, redevelopment authorities, leadership groups, and others. Each state-level Rural Development office maintains a Native American Tribal Coordinator to assist tribes with their development interests 

by providing technical assistance and programmatic knowledge throughout the application process. 

Rural Development has a long history of investing in tribal economies. From 2001 to 2010, Rural Development assistance benefiting tribes totaled more than $2.7 billion. 

To understand what these programs mean to the communities they serve, it might 

be helpful to frame the situation in terms of the more familiar urban landscape 

most Americans inhabit. When an urban area loses an employer, the fallout, while 

potentially very significant, is seldom crippling for the local economy. City leaders 

assemble a team and redouble ongoing efforts to woo other corporations with promises of infrastructure improvements and tax credits, promotional materials that 

highlight transportation efficiencies, and an abundant and educated labor supply. 

They point to quality housing stock, good schools, and strong vibrant communities 

that are supportive of long-term investment. 

This response is almost without corollary in vast areas of rural America—including Indian Country. The municipal resources needed to market a rural area to compete for businesses often don’t exist. The available labor supply generally doesn’t 

have the depth of educational achievement or skills of its urban or suburban counterpart. The infrastructure, transportation, housing and schools are typically challenged, and the distances to customers or markets are often greater. 

Rural Development programs are designed to address these challenges. Using program resources to encourage healthier, more efficient credit markets, Rural Development field offices develop innovative to meet the unique needs of tribal and rural 

communities. To support rural regional and tribal economic prosperity, Rural Development provides job training and business development opportunities for rural residents, including cooperative business development, community economic development and strategic community planning and self-help initiatives. Funding for most 

of these efforts is administered by Rural Business Programs. 

Rural Development also offers programs to provide the educational opportunities, 

training, technical support, and tools for rural residents to start small businesses 

and to access jobs in agricultural markets, the green economy, and other existing 

markets, as well as acquire training in vocational and entrepreneurship skills they 

can use in the marketplace and business sector. 

USDA, in cooperation with our public and private partners, is connecting tribes, 

tribal members and rural residents to the global economy by:

1. Increasing access to broadband and continuous business creation; 

2. Facilitating sustainable renewable energy development; 

3. Developing regional food systems; and 

4. Generating and retaining jobs through recreation and natural resource restoration, conservation, and management.

Such investments support our long-term national prosperity by ensuring that 

rural communities are self-sustaining, repopulating, and thriving economically. 

For example, in 2011, Rural Development invested in businesses in Indian County 

through multiple programs. These investments included $7.6 million through the 

Business and Industry (or B&I) Loan Guarantee program and another $4.2 million 

in grants through the Rural Business Enterprise and Rural Business Opportunity 

9

Grant Programs (RBEG and RBOG programs) to support tribal economic development and job creation opportunities for tribal members. RBEG and RBOG programs 

are among the few Rural Development programs where Congress legislatively mandates that some funds be reserved exclusively for the benefit of Federally Recognized Tribes. 

Under the Rural Business Opportunity Grant Programs funding this year, in 

Oklahoma, the Indian Country Agriculture Resource Development Corporation was 

selected to receive a grant to provide business training to two dozen Native American agricultural entrepreneurs who are working to supply meat and vegetable products to southwestern buyers. The funding will be used for training that includes 

general business planning and feasibility assessment, risk assessment, marketing 

techniques and financial planning. The Nez Perce Tribe in rural Idaho also received 

a Rural Business Opportunity Grant this year to establish a Business Information 

Research Library and a Chamber of Commerce with a Leadership Development Program. 

Likewise, under the Rural Business Enterprise Grant Program the Montana Indian Business Alliance in Great Falls, Mont., was selected to receive a grant to provide businesses training technical assistance to members of Indian Tribes of Montana. The funding will create an estimated 14 jobs. In Ukiah, Calif., Resource for 

Native Development was selected to receive a technical assistance grant to provide 

Tribal members with business and entrepreneurial training—including training that 

focuses on developing biomass-centered businesses and local food hubs. This project 

is expected to create 30 jobs. 

The Wind River Development Fund in Wyoming received an RBEG grant to conduct a feasibility study for the development of a joint venture construction project 

to build a new health clinic in Fort Washakie, Wyoming to serve residents of the 

Wind River Indian Reservation. The Wind River Development Fund is a tribally 

chartered, non-profit corporation assisting Native peoples develop small and emerging businesses. 

USDA also received Recovery Act funds to expand broadband access, and through those funds provided grants and loans totaling over $400 million to expand 

broadband access in tribal communities through the Broadband Initiatives Program. 

This included $182 million to ten infrastructure investments directly to tribes and 

tribally-owned businesses and eleven technical assistance awards to tribes to assist 

with regional broadband plans to promote economic development. Similarly, Rural 

Development made $216.3 million in Recovery Act investments benefiting American 

Indian and Alaska Native populations, including $36.3 million for community water 

and wastewater infrastructure, $97.5 million for community facilities, and $81.1 

million for single family housing. The Obama Administration continues its commitment to the success of rural areas by providing tribal communities and rural areas 

with resources to expand economic opportunities. 

In 2010 and 2011 Rural Development engaged in unprecedented tribal consultation and outreach activities. Rural Development conducted twenty direct government-to-government Substantially Underserved Trust Areas (or SUTA) consultations, seven regional consultation, one listening session, and three Internet and toll 

free teleconference webinars. Feedback from these efforts helped the Rural Utilities 

Service with the implementation of the SUTA provision of the 2008 Farm Bill—for 

which we just published a proposed rule in the Federal Register on October 14th. 

The SUTA provision, once fully implemented will allow Rural Development to provide much greater flexibility and more favorable term loans to create much needed 

utilities infrastructure. 

This past year, based on tribal feedback, we also expanded the definition of small 

businesses in the Rural Energy for America Program to explicitly include Tribal 

Section 17 Corporations and other similar Tribal Corporations as eligible applicants. 

This may seem like a minor change, but it provides a clear path toward eligibility 

so that tribal corporations can access both grants and loan guarantees to help finance renewable energy and energy efficiency projects. 

Through consultation with tribes and tribal leaders, communicating with staff and 

analyzing our programs, it also became apparent that significant challenges exist 

when tribal entities attempt to access the Value-Added Agricultural Product Market 

Development grants or VAPG program. The program is designed to help eligible 

producers of agricultural commodities enter into or expand value-added activities including the development of feasibility studies, business plans, and marketing strategies. The program will also provide working capital for expenses such as implementing an existing viable marketing strategy. 

Eligible applicants for the VAPG program are independent producers, farmer and 

rancher cooperatives, agricultural producer groups, and majority-controlled producer-based business ventures. The unique cultural and governmental structures of 

10

tribes are diverse, but in general the tribal nature of these communities does not 

encourage further grouping of shared interests (e.g. cooperatives, producer groups, 

majority controlled producer-based business ventures). The VAPG program requirements coupled with the typical governmental structures of tribal entities may have 

discouraged some tribal organizations from applying for VAPG funds. 

Due to the unique nature of the relationship between USDA and Federally Recognized Indian Tribes and changes in the 2008 Farm Bill that provide priorities for 

beginning farmers or ranchers, socially disadvantaged farmers or ranchers, and operators of small- and medium-sized family farms, Rural Development is encouraging 

the field staff to use maximum flexibility when determining whether or not applications from tribal entities are eligible for assistance under the VAPG program. 

The unique cultural and governmental structures of tribes does not typically encourage grouping of shared interests into cooperatives, producer groups, or majority 

controlled producer-based business ventures. In many instances, tribal organizations 

forming shared interest organizations would be duplicative and unnecessary. In lieu 

of these organizational structures in Indian Country, tribal entities engaged in 

value added activities might be considered independent producers or agriculture 

producer groups. Examples of tribal entities that may be eligible include: tribally 

owned for profit corporations, tribally owned farms, tribal Section 17 Corporations, 

for profit and not for profit corporations created under the laws of a federally recognized tribe, cooperatives formed under the laws of a federally recognized tribe, and 

tribal governments (including sub-divisions thereof). 

On another note—Rural Development is in the process of releasing an administrative notice to clarify the eligibility of AMERIND Risk Management Corporation as 

an insurer for Single Family Housing Direct Loan programs. Historically, insurance 

and insurance-like products have been unavailable, difficult to access, or expensive 

on trust lands owned by tribes and tribal members. In some instances this lack of 

insurance may have been an impediment to utilizing Rural Development financing 

for projects on tribal lands. In practice, Rural Development requires Federal and applicable state laws and regulations to be followed when insuring Rural Development 

financed projects, but barring those limitations there is no legal or programmatic 

reason to deny the use of an appropriate AMERIND product on any project financed 

through Rural Development’s Single Family Housing Direct Loan programs. Our efforts in working with AMERIND to bring them into the insurer pool for RD projects 

will make access to our housing funding products more amenable in Indian Country. 

Rural Development will continue to build upon this Administration’s strong commitment to Indian Country by working to find areas for better collaboration and improved flexibility in government programs. 

An example of collaboration with Rural Development is demonstrated by the Bois 

Forte Tribe in northeastern Minnesota. As recently as 10 years ago, there were 

areas of the Bois Forte community that did not have safe and sanitary drinking 

water. Building safe and affordable housing for tribal members also was an issue, 

along with other infrastructure and facility needs. 

Tribal leaders took a proactive approach and formed a valuable partnership with 

USDA Rural Development. The partnership has resulted in modern infrastructure, 

updated facilities, and more affordable housing being built in the community. 

Though the work at Bois Forte is not done, the tribe is now recognized for its dedication toward economic development and improving the quality of life for tribal 

members. 

According to the USDA Rural Development State Director in Minnesota, Colleen 

Landkamer, ‘‘It’s amazing to see the dedication and passion that Bois Forte puts 

into improving its community. Bois Forte understands how housing, infrastructure 

and essential community facilities intertwine to create sustainable and livable communities.’’

Since 1994, Rural Development has invested over $13.5 million throughout the 

Bois Forte community. Projects include funding to deliver safe drinking water to 

new affordable housing developments, equipment for a tribal fitness center, utility 

vehicles and equipment, and gap financing for tribal businesses. 

Kevin Leecy, Bois Forte Tribal Chair recently stated, ‘‘Through our partnership 

with the USDA, we’ve been able to build the infrastructure necessary to develop residential neighborhoods and complete other projects. The partnership is a win-win 

for our people and the economic growth of the broader community.’’

Rural Development also awarded a $100,000 loan and grant to finance the purchase of a new snow plow for the reservation. A $2.5 million loan and grant also 

helped deliver water and sewer services to over 100 new homes in the Lake 

Vermillion portion of the Bois Forte community. 

Rural Development’s programs are a critical component to supporting, growing 

and ultimately sustaining rural communities. According to the 2010 decennial cenVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:52 Nov 26, 2012 Jkt 075282 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\75282.TXT JACK
11

sus, 42.6 percent of all Native Americans live in rural areas. Unfortunately, some 

reservations face unemployment rates of up to 80 percent. While Rural Development 

program funding for fiscal year 2012 is limited, we recognize the importance of our 

programs. Tribal communities can benefit from the resources, knowledge and experience of Rural Development staff in addressing the challenges unique to rural areas. 

Rural Development can be an even more involved partner with Indian Country as 

we move forward. We have been actively engaging tribal leaders in consultation and 

intend to continue on this path. We know Rural Development has a portfolio that 

more tribal governments can use to build vibrant rural economies. 

While we know that there are real challenges in Indian Country, we also recognize the opportunity. We stand ready to support Tribes and Tribal members in their 

efforts to improve their quality of life and create economic opportunities. We are 

committed to continually improving our service to Native Americans, with particular 

focus on nation to nation consultation and recognition of the special trust relationship we have with Tribal Communities. 

I again encourage tribal leaders to reach out to the Rural Development Native 

American Coordinators. Below is a list of those coordinators, respectfully submitted 

to the Committee.

Tedd Buelow, Native American Coordinator, USDAlRural Development 

1400 Independence Avenue, SWStop 3250, Washington DC 20250

Alabama

Ricky Dawson, 207 Faulkner Drive, Suite 119, Bay Minette, AL 36507

Nebraska

Dale Wemhoff, 1909 Vicki Lane, Suite 103, Norfolk, NE 68701

Alaska 

Gene Kane, 510 L Street, Suite 410, Anchorage, AK 99501

Wayne Maloney, 800 W. Evergreen #201, Palmer, AK 99645

Nevada

Barbara Allen, 1390 South Curry Street, Carson City, NV 89703

Arizona

Don Irby, 8841 E. Florentine, Suite B, Prescott Valley, AZ 86314

New Jersey

Christie Mayers, Suite 2, 51 Cheney Road, Woodstown, NJ 08098

Arkansas

LaWanna Duvall, 420 N. Hampton Avenue, Russellville, AR 72802

New Mexico

Elizabeth Kistin, 6200 Jefferson NElRoom 225, Albuquerque, NM 87109

California

Janice Wadell, 430 G Street, Davis, CA 95616

New York

David Miller, 441 S. Salina St., Suite 357, Syracuse, NY 13215

Colorado

Amelia Owens, 628 W. 5th Street, Cortez, CO 81321

North Carolina

Vacant 

Delaware/Maryland

Vacant 

North Dakota

Marion Houn, 220 East Rosser, Federal Bldg. Room 208, Bismark, ND 58502

Florida/Virgin Islands

Luis Carrero, 2629 Waverly Barn Road, Davenport, FL 33897

Ohio

Christie Hooks, 200 North High Street, Room 507, Columbus, OH 43215

Georgia

Deborah Callahan, 355 E. Hancock Avenue, Suite 300, Athens, GA 30601–2768

Oklahoma

David M. Moore, 200 South 3rd, McAlester, OK 74501

Hawaii

Alvin Okamoto, Room 311, Federal Building, 154 Waianuenue Avenue, Hilo, HI 

96720

Oregon

Barrie Lasure, 625 S.E. Salmon Ave., Suite 5, Redmond, OR 97756

Idaho

Roni Atkins, 9173 West Barnes, Suite A1, Boise, ID 83709

Pennsylvania

Vacant 

Illinois

12

Rob Loschen, 2118 West Park Court Suite A, Champaign, IL 61821

Puerto Rico 

Vacant 

Indiana

Rochelle Owen, 5975 Lakeside Boulevard, Indianapolis, IN 46278

South Carolina 

Cathy Seawright, 1835 Assembly Street, Room 1007, Columbia, SC 29210

Iowa

Eric Ulrichs, 709 S. Iris St., Suite 103, Mt. Pleasant, IA 52641

South Dakota

Christine Sorensen, 1717 N. Lincoln, Suite 102, Pierre, SD 57501

Kansas

Daniel Fischer, 3705 Miller Parkway, Suite A, Manhattan, KS 66503–7604

Tennessee

Robert Connely, 3322 West End Avenue, Suite 300, Nashville, TN 37203

Kentucky

Vacant 

Texas

Anita Sprankle, 11930 Vista del Sol, Suite C, El Paso, TX 79936

Louisiana

Cathy Beales, 1803 Trade Drive, P.O. Box 1990, Ruston, LA 71273

Utah

Perry Mathews, 302 E. 1860 Street, Provo, UT 84606

Maine

Milton Ross, 735 Main Street, Suite 1, Presque Isle, ME 04769

Vermont/New Hampshire 

Sherry Paige, 89 Main Street, 3rd Floor City Center, Montpelier, VT 05602

Massachusetts/Rhode Island/Connecticut 

Jennifer Lerch, 451 West Street, Suite 2, Amherst, MA 01002

Virginia

Jerry Outlaw, 100 Dominion Drive, Farmville, VA 23901

Michigan

Wendy Sexton, N16550 County Road 563, Powers, MI 49874

Washington

Paul Johnson, 1835 Black Lake Boulevard, S.W., Suite B, Olympia, WA 98512

Minnesota

Adam Czech, 410 Farm Credit Service Building, 375 Jackson Street, St. Paul, MN 

55101

West Virginia

Jesse Gandee, 1 Ball Park Drive, McMechen, WV 26040

Mississippi

Betty Price, Suite 831, Federal Building, 100 West Capitol Street, Jackson, MS 

39269

Wisconsin

Donna Huebner, 603–B Lakeland Road, Shawano, WI 54166

Missouri

Lue Lockridge-Lane, 601 Business Loop 70 W., Suite 235, Columbia, MO 65203–

2546

Wyoming

Ann Stoeger, 508 N. Broadway, Riverton, WY 82501

Montana

James ‘‘J.P.’’ Pendleton, 2229 Boot Hill Court, Bozeman, MT 59715

Thank you for the opportunity to be here today, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the 

opportunity to talk about Rural Development programs and our commitment to job 

creation in Indian Country. I look forward to addressing any questions you and 

other members of the Committee might have.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. O’Brien, for your 

statement. 

Mr. Blackwell, please proceed with your remarks. 

13

STATEMENT OF GEOFFREY C. BLACKWELL, CHIEF, OFFICE OF 

NATIVE AFFAIRS AND POLICY, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

Mr. BLACKWELL. Chairman Akaka, Vice Chairman Barrasso, 

Senator Franken, Senator Udall, members of the Committee, hesci, 

aloha and thank you for the opportunity to return and testify today 

about the importance of broadband infrastructure to the economic 

opportunities for Native America and the Commission’s efforts to 

work with Native leaders to deploy broadband and other communications services. 

I previously testified to the Committee that the lack of communications services in Indian Country is alarming. Our most recent 

reliable census data indicates a basic telephone service penetration 

rate of only 67.9 percent. And evidence indicates even more troubling, a broadband penetration rate of less than 10 percent on Tribal lands. 

The work of the Office of Native Affairs and Policy is a new strategic partnership in which we exercise the trust relationship that 

the Commission shares with Tribal nations. In our work, we have 

heard the following key points directly from Tribal leaders. Virtually no critical infrastructure has come to Tribal lands without 

Federal investment, oversight and regulation. 

There are numerous and comprehensive communications needs 

throughout Indian Country. And there is great diversity within 

those critical needs. It is clear that one size fits none. Broadband 

is a predicate to thriving communities and an environment of economic opportunities. That is, broadband enables the provision of 

quality health care, education, public safety and jobs. 

Broadband can also empower the opportunities of hope by keeping young and old generations connected in community culture. 

Perhaps most importantly, broadband must be available, accessible 

and affordable to meet its great promise for Tribal nations and Native communities. 

Under the leadership of Chairman Genachowski, with the longtime dedication of Commissioner Copps and with the involvement 

of the entire Commission, and all of its bureaus and offices, there 

is a new focus on Native issues at the Commission. We have engaged in discussions that have led us to a better understanding of 

some of the greatest challenges facing Native communities. We 

have spoken at length with Tribal leaders about the interrelated 

nature of broadband deployment, overall community well-being and 

economic development. 

The term economic development raises many different viewpoints 

and opinions. We have spoken with Tribal nations on those many 

different kinds of economies, those with small, fragile or unstable 

economies, those with stable but undiversified economies, and 

those with diverse economies with broad capabilities. Economic opportunities germinate and grow in a safe, educated and healthy environment. And broadband can create a more level playing field for 

Tribal economies. Broadband has become the linchpin for creating 

the stability within communities that fosters the opportunities for 

economic empowerment. That is, workforces can be educated be 

educated or trained and recruited at a distance with broadband, 

health care and public safety services supported by robust 

14

broadband networks provide the stability that outside corporate 

partners seek when looking to locate in or partner with Tribal communities. When research is available and marketplaces accessible 

online, goods and services can be brought to the global buyer. 

Through opportunities based on their sovereign status, Tribal nations can be potent partners in strategic development alongside industry teammates. In sum, broadband infrastructures that employ 

to engage all the needs of a Native community, Tribal-centric employment, are investments that have a much greater chance to see 

successful returns and ultimate profitability. 

Several Tribes have said that the term economic development is 

often taken to mean merely chasing the dollars or simply looking 

for the next contract or sales opportunity. In other words, a shortterm fix approach and not a true, lasting solution. They have explained that the Development of their economies is a better approach to the efforts to create opportunities for economic empowerment by building systems of governance that engage with industries, demonstrate stability and encourage the deployment of services. 

In closing, the Commission is engaged in several efforts to create 

opportunities for just such Tribal government engagement, designed to bring the benefits of 21st century communication services 

to Tribal lands. For example, the recently-released Connect America Fund Order will, for the first time, require all carriers providing voice and broadband services on Tribal lands to undertake 

meaningful engagement with Tribal governments on a variety of 

broadband-deployment related priorities. 

Also for the first time, the Commission created a Tribal Mobility 

Fund dedicated to the provision of wireless services on Tribal 

lands. This Tribal Mobility Fund, as a part of the Connect America 

Fund, will provide an allocation of $50 million in its first year and 

an allocation thereafter of up to $100 million per year. This is of 

course just one example of the multiple proceedings underway at 

the Commission. 

Mvto, mahalo and thank you again for the opportunity to testify 

this afternoon. I look forward to answering any questions you may 

have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Blackwell follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GEOFFREY C. BLACKWELL, CHIEF, OFFICE OF NATIVE

AFFAIRS AND POLICY, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Chairman Akaka, Vice Chairman Barrasso, and Members of the Committee, 

hesci, aloha, and thank you for the opportunity to testify today about the importance of broadband infrastructures to the economic opportunities for Tribal Nations 

and Native Communities, and the Commission’s efforts to work with Native leaders 

to deploy broadband and other services. 

In October, I told the Committee that the lack of all communications services in 

Indian Country is alarming. Our most recent reliable census data indicates that 

over 70 years of development and expansion of the telecommunications industry has 

resulted in only a 67.9 percent basic telephone service penetration rate. I shared 

that the statistics for broadband penetration are even more troubling—less than 10 

percent of residents on Tribal lands have access to the lifeblood of our 21st century 

economy, educational opportunities, health care, and public safety. Behind these too 

familiar statistics lurks a stark and complex reality. A consequence of the unfortunate history that Indian Country has endured is an endemic lack of many critical 

infrastructures in Tribal and Native communities. 

15

It is especially important, in the context of this hearing, to reiterate certain key 

points. Virtually no critical infrastructure has come to Tribal lands without federal 

investment, oversight, and regulation. There are numerous and comprehensive communications needs throughout Indian Country, and there is great diversity within 

those critical needs. It is clear that ‘‘one size fits none.’’ Broadband, the most critical 

21st century infrastructure, is the predicate to thriving communities and an environment of economic opportunity. That is, broadband enables the provision of quality health care, education, public safety, and jobs. Broadband can also empower the 

opportunities of hope, by keeping young and old generations connected in community culture. Perhaps most importantly, broadband must be available, accessible, 

and affordable to meet its great promise for Tribal Nations and Native Communities. We have heard these key points directly from Tribal leaders throughout Native America. 

Broadband Deployment and Economic Opportunities in Indian Country 

On many occasions, we have spoken at length with Tribal leaders from across the 

country about the inter-related nature of broadband deployment, overall community 

well-being, and economic development. We have spoken with Tribal Nations with 

small, fragile, or unstable economies. We have also spoken with those who have stable, but undiversified economies, and those with diverse economies with broad capabilities. We have engaged in discussions that have led us to a better understanding 

of some of the greatest challenges facing Tribal leaders. 

We have been told many times that Tribal Nations cannot develop the potential 

of their economies and communities without the proper tools, and that the tool of 

broadband must be more affordable and accessible. The term ‘‘economic development’’ raises many different viewpoints and opinions. Most importantly, broadband 

has become the linchpin to creating the stability within a community that fosters 

the opportunities for economic empowerment. 

Some Tribes have posited that ‘‘economic development’’ means merely chasing the 

dollars, or simply looking for that next contract or sales opportunity. They explain 

how, as a Washington buzz-word, ‘‘economic development’’ connotes a short-term fix 

approach and not a true lasting solution. Tribal Nations have also explained that 

the development of their economies is more appropriately approached through efforts to create opportunities for economic empowerment by building systems of governance that engage industries, demonstrate stability, and encourage the deployment of services. Economic opportunities germinate and grow in a safe, educated, 

and healthy environment. Workforces can be educated or trained and recruited at 

a distance with broadband. Healthcare and public safety services supported by robust broadband networks provide the stability that outside corporate partners seek 

when looking to locate or partner in Tribal communities. When research is available 

and marketplaces accessible online, goods and services can be brought to the global 

buyer. Along with industries, Tribal Nations can be potent partners in strategic development through certain opportunities based on their sovereign status. As a federal economic regulatory agency, the Commission is engaged in efforts throughout 

the agency to create opportunities for just such Tribal government engagement. In 

sum, broadband infrastructures that are deployed to engage all the needs of a Native community—’’Tribal-centric’’ deployment—are investments that have a much 

greater chance to see successful returns and ultimate profitability. 

In our work with Tribal leaders, we have heard many priorities and concerns, including those associated with broadband speed and reliability. Common priorities 

include the ability of Tribal entities to become their own regulated service providers 

in the future and to access new opportunities in mobile services. A major concern 

is the accurate measurement of the actual state of broadband availability on Tribal 

lands. Many Tribal and Native community leaders have articulated concerns about 

both the depth and accuracy of the data on the state of services on their lands. They 

have asked how this data is verified by the state and federal agencies involved in 

the field. This Committee articulated this same concern in October. While attending 

the late September Native American Summit in Salt Lake City, we witnessed representatives of the Goshute Confederated Tribes explain to the Utah state 

broadband mapping manager that the gross overestimation of wireless broadband 

coverage on the Goshute Reservation actually precluded the Tribe from applying for 

federal grants and loans for a Tribal project that would address the lack of services. 

The Utah state broadband mapping coordinator explained that the federal grant did 

not have funding to verify the data. Increased coordination among the relevant federal agencies and the meaningful involvement of Native Nations, embracing them 

as partners, would begin to address these unintended consequences and barriers. 

16

Tribal Engagement as a Critical Component to Broadband Deployment 

In October, and this past April while before the Senate Commerce Committee, I 

explained the purposes of the Office of Native Affairs and Policy. Our work with 

Tribal Nations is a new strategic partnership, one in which we effectuate and exercise the trust relationship that the Commission shares with Tribal Nations. The 

enormity of our mission is vast. Changing our rules alone is not enough. Complex 

problems require new approaches and mechanisms, and active efforts both in Washington and far into the field, to develop and coordinate well thoughtout solutions. 

Our approach is to work together to identify and remove barriers to solutions and 

build models with Tribal Nations that engage their core community or anchor institutions. As Tribes govern with a unique understanding of their communities, their 

vested and active involvement is critically important to finding lasting solutions in 

their communities. We seek to place Native Nations themselves in the center of 

those solutions, whether it is through actual self-provisioning of communications 

services or through new ‘‘Tribal-centric’’ methods of engagement and deployment 

with industry, public, or private partners. These models must respect the cultural 

values and sovereign priorities of Tribal Nations and be infused with the local 

knowledge that will lead to better opportunities for successful deployment in Native 

communities. 

The Office is responsible for developing and driving a Tribal agenda at the Commission and serves as the Commission’s primary point of contact on all Native 

issues. To fulfill our mission and transform the communications landscape, our work 

as an Office cannot be as just another outsider from Washington. Instead, the Office 

must be a knowledgeable and respected Indian Country insider. We must foster an 

expert understanding and familiarity with Native America and maintain a firsthand 

view of the complexity of the problems. Within our first five quarters of operations, 

we met with Tribal leaders in Arizona, California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New 

Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, and Washington, as 

well as within the Hawaiian Home Lands. We went to some of the most unserved 

areas of the Nation. Other remote and underserved areas, including those within 

Alaska, are at the top of our future travel priorities. We will continue to go deep 

into the Native Nations, meeting collectively and individually with Tribal leaders, 

Tribal Councils, Native associations, Triballyowned and operated communications 

providers, Tribal broadcasters and broadband providers, as well as with Native consumers and businesses. 

We logged thousands of miles and traveled to places where the Commission has 

never been before, experiencing the lack of connectivity from the other end of the 

digital divide, and seeking the input of American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native 

Hawaiian leaders. In Native Communities, one sees the human side of the lack of 

communications and broadband services, and the limitations of connectivity, speed, 

and reliability. We have visited some of the most remote schools in the country, engaging in distance education discussions from classrooms at the Native end of the 

signals. Also at the Native end of the line, we experienced the concerns raised by 

lower speed and lower resolution Internet connections while sitting alongside an oncology patient in her telemedicine distance diagnosis session. On many occasions, 

we saw impressive solutions juxtaposed with overwhelming needs and challenges. 

The Commission’s Priorities on Tribal Lands in 2011 and Beyond 

Under Chairman Genachowski’s leadership, and with the involvement of the entire Commission and all of its Bureaus and Offices, the Commission has launched 

a number of groundbreaking rulemaking proceedings with Tribal engagement and 

inclusion at their very core. From rules reforming universal service and expanding 

broadcast opportunities, to proposed rules for new mobile wireless licensing opportunities, to an omnibus inquiry on a range of issues related to broadband adoption 

and deployment on Tribal lands, these proceedings will in part serve as the foundation for the engagement of Native Nations that is critical to the deployment of communications infrastructure and the resulting availability of broadband and advanced communications services on Tribal lands. 

The Connect America Fund Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

On October 27th, the Commission comprehensively reformed the universal service 

and intercarrier compensation systems by creating a new Connect America Fund. 

For the first time, meaningful engagement with Tribal governments will be required 

of all carriers providing voice and broadband services on Tribal lands, including 

both communications providers currently providing service and those contemplating 

the provision of service on Tribal lands. Engagement must include, for example, a 

needs assessment and deployment planning with a focus on Tribal community anchor institutions, and feasibility and sustainability planning. Also for the first time, 

17

the Connect America Fund will secure universal service support for mobility directly, rather than as a side effect of the competitive eligible telecommunications 

carrier (ETC) system, by the establishment of a Mobility Fund and a Tribal Mobility 

Fund. Phase I of the Mobility Fund will provide $300 million in one-time support, 

with an additional $50 million allocated to the Tribal Mobility Fund. Phase II of 

the Mobility Fund will provide ongoing, recurring support for mobile service, with 

an annual budget of $500 million, of which up to $100 million will be designated 

annually for the Tribal Mobility Fund. Carriers seeking to serve Tribal lands may 

participate in both phases of the general Mobility Fund and the Tribal Mobility 

Fund. In addition, Tribally-owned or controlled providers seeking general or Tribal 

Mobility Fund Phase I support for the purpose of providing service on Tribal lands 

will receive a 25 percent bidding credit, thus increasing the likelihood that Triballyowned or controlled entities will receive funding and creating an atmosphere conducive to Tribal economic opportunity and development. 

The Wireless Spectrum Tribal Lands Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

If Tribally-owned or controlled entities are to realize the benefits of the general 

Mobility Fund and the Tribal Mobility Fund, Tribal governments must have access 

to robust wireless spectrum. Native Nations have asked the Commission for greater 

access to such spectrum to meet the challenges of terrain and distance that many 

Native communities face and, for some time now, the need for this action has been 

critical. On March 3rd, the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NPRM) to promote greater use of spectrum to help close the communications gap 

on Tribal lands and to ensure that Native governments are at the center of the decisionmaking process. This NPRM, one of the most important requests from Native 

Nations in the last decade, strives to put licenses in the hands of those who will 

value the spectrum and build out on Tribal lands. Three of the five proposals 

launched in the NPRM would create new opportunities for Native Nations to gain 

access to spectrum through Commercial Mobile Radio Services licenses, while the 

other two proposals are designed to create new incentives for existing licensees to 

deploy wireless services. This proceeding is pending at the Commission. 

The Rural Radio Tribal Priority Order 

Tribal governments want to provide information and community news to their 

people, and are looking at radio programming to promote and preserve Native culture and language, and to advance cultural dialogue. KUYI on the Hopi Reservation, KLND on the Standing Rock Reservation, KIDE on the Hoopa Valley Reservation, and KWSO on the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs Reservation are prime 

examples of such cultural enterprise. Last year, the Commission took steps to address the imbalance in the number of radio stations licensed to Native Nations and 

communities, as compared to the rest of the country, when it adopted an historic 

Tribal Priority designed to award a decisive preference to any federally recognized 

American Indian Tribe or Alaska Native Village seeking to establish its first non- commercial radio station on its Tribal lands. The Tribal Priority was greeted with 

enthusiasm by Tribal governments, but it was noted that certain Native Nations, 

because of their historical or geographic circumstances, might not be able to take 

advantage of the priority. In a Second Report and Order adopted on March 3rd, the 

Commission addressed these special circumstances by adopting provisions to address the needs of non-landed Native Nations and those with small or irregularly 

shaped lands that make it difficult to meet some of the requirements of the Tribal 

Priority. In addition, the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

seeking comment on proposals to apply the Tribal Priority to certain commercial FM 

channel allotments and potentially obviating the need to go to auction. An order in 

this proceeding is currently on circulation at the Commission, and the hope is that 

these new mechanisms can help Native Nations deploy services in this critical and 

widely adopted media technology, as they also build designs and resources for new 

advanced broadband platforms. 

The Native Nations Notice of Inquiry 

The Commission has said on many occasions that broadband is indispensable infrastructure for economic growth and job creation, and nowhere is that need more 

acutely felt than on Tribal lands. The lack of robust broadband services—and, in 

fact, even basic communications services—contributes to the challenges Native Nations face in building strong economies with diverse businesses and development 

projects. On March 3rd, therefore, the Commission launched a broad-based inquiry 

into a wide range of communications issues facing Native Nations—an inquiry that 

will provide a foundation for updating the Commission’s rules and policies to provide greater economic, market entry, and communications adoption opportunities 

and incentives for Native Nations. The result of a broad collaborative effort across 

18

the Commission, led by the Office of Native Affairs and Policy, the Notice will lay 

the groundwork for policies that can help Native Nations build economic and educational opportunities for their own Tribal lands. The Notice seeks comment on the 

best ways to support sustainable broadband deployment, adoption, and digital literacy training on Tribal lands. Among other important questions, the Commission 

asks about the possibility of expanding the Tribal Priority concept into a Native Nations Priority, to identify and remove barriers to entry, rather than using a caseby-case waiver approach, thus making it easier for Native Nations to provide other 

services—wireless, wireline, and satellite—to their communities. The Commission 

also asks about opportunities to use communications services to help Native Nations 

address public safety challenges on Tribal lands, including the broad lack of 911 and 

E–911 services, and the needs of persons with disabilities on Tribal lands. 

Recognizing that, given their unique challenges and significant obstacles to 

broadband deployment, Native Nations need substantially greater financial support 

than is presently available, the Notice of Inquiry also seeks comment on a recommendation of the National Broadband Plan to establish a Native Nations 

Broadband Fund. The National Broadband Plan notes that grants from a new Native Nations Broadband Fund could be used for a variety of purposes, including 

bringing high-capacity connectivity to governmental headquarters or other anchor 

institutions, deployment planning, infrastructure build out, feasibility studies, technical assistance, business plan development and implementation, digital literacy, 

and outreach. In the Notice of Inquiry, the Commission seeks comment on a number 

of issues associated with the establishment of the Native Nations Broadband Fund, 

including the need for such a fund, the purposes for which it would be used, and 

the level of funding. The public comment period for the Notice has ended, and we 

are in the process of assessing the record and determining next steps for each of 

the issues addressed in the Notice. 

The Low-Income Program Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

The Commission has long recognized the unique and dire economic circumstances 

many Tribal Nations and Native Communities face and has sought to alleviate the 

issue of affordability through the Lifeline and Link Up programs of the universal 

service fund. But with a telephone penetration rate hovering below 70 percent and 

a broadband penetration rate well below ten percent, much remains to be done. According to Gila River Telecommunications, Inc., a Tribally-owned telecommunications company, the telephone penetration rate for the Gila River Indian Community stands at 86 percent, still well below the national average of 98 percent but 

significantly above the average on Tribal lands. Gila River attributes its success in 

expanding the reach of telephone service largely to Lifeline, given that roughly 91 

percent of the Community’s elders participate in Lifeline. On March 3rd, the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in which it proposes to reform 

and modernize Lifeline and Link Up—issues of great interest to Native Nations. 

The Commission is preparing to take action in the near future to address many of 

the issues raised in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 

The FCC-Native Nations Broadband Task Force 

One of the top requests from Native Nations in the National Broadband Plan was 

the creation of a new FCC-Native Nations Broadband Task Force that would ensure 

that the Commission’s consultation with Native Nations is an ongoing, continuous 

dialogue and a shared effort between partners. Chairman Genachowski fulfilled this 

request when, on March 3rd, he appointed to the Task Force 19 members representing Native Nations and 11 members representing Bureaus and Offices across 

the Commission. The Task Force will ensure that Native concerns are considered 

in all relevant Commission proceedings and will work to develop additional recommendations for promoting broadband deployment and adoption on Tribal lands. 

A New Federal Interagency Tribal Broadband Working Group 

The Office will also coordinate a new federal interagency broadband working 

group that we will initiate by the end of this year. This interagency working group 

will coordinate both internally and directly with Tribal Nations, the Task Force, and 

other Native Community institutions on broadband-related policies and programs. 

The working group will be comprised of representatives from other federal agencies 

concerned with Tribal Nations and Native Communities with missions on related to 

broadband and communications deployment, such as education, health, public safety, energy, cultural preservation, and economic empowerment. 

Conclusion 

All of these efforts will culminate in more efficient ways of working with our Tribal Nation and Native Community partners, the industries, and the institutions of 

19

Indian Country. We have heard several recurring themes in our conversations with 

Native leaders—continue to meet with us, listen to us, and use what we tell you 

to bring communications on Tribal lands into the 21st century. One of our remaining top priorities is to overhaul, update, and increase the collaborative value of the 

Commission’s Indian Telecom Initiatives, or ITI program. We look forward to increasing the effectiveness and value of these regional workshops, trainings, consultation, and networking events. We also look forward to infusing this program 

with the new prerogatives of Tribal engagement and economic empowerment. 

The overarching message we hear from Tribal leaders is that if consultations are 

to be successful, and if efforts to inform, educate, and put Tribal Nations at the center of the decisionmaking process are to succeed, we must do our work largely within their communities. Tribal leaders have told us that, in order to best help them 

solve communications problems, we must work with them where the problems exist, 

see the problems first-hand, help them engage with government and industry institutions, and endeavor to find the solutions in concert with them. We welcome all 

of these opportunities. 

Mvto, mahalo, and thank you again for the opportunity to testify this afternoon. 

I look forward to answering any questions you may have.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Blackwell, for your 

remarks. 

Mr. O’Brien, many Native-serving utility companies that use the 

RUS program have relied heavily on funds from the Universal 

Service Fund. How does the new FCC order issued this month affect the availability of these companies to use the RUS program 

now? 

Mr. O’BRIEN. Thank you for that question, Chairman. You are 

correct that most of the lenders of the RUS, in particular the telecommunications program, also utilize the Universal Service Fund 

as part of their revenue package. In fact, 99 percent of the 435 

total lenders utilize the USF. 

We were happy to and gratified that the FCC invited USDA to 

provide an analysis of the proposed rule on USF, which we did, and 

provided it into the public comment period. And now as we have 

received, just within the last two weeks, the 700-page rule, our 

folks in RUS are analyzing the rule for its effect on our borrowers. 

We have already been in contact with a number of our borrowers 

and we have heard concern. We are tracking that very closely and 

will take their input as we consider the effect on our portfolio. 

At the end of the day, our responsibility is to ensure that the 

portfolio of RUS is sound and that we have a vital program into 

the future. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. I will have further questions. But let me defer and ask my colleagues for questions that 

they may have. Senator Udall? 

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Deputy Under Secretary O’Brien, as you said in your statement, 

you have excellent staff out at your State offices. I know at least 

in New Mexico, where Terry Bruner has been working hard to 

present development opportunities and programs to the Tribes and 

been working closely with them, there have been some real successes out there. Can you tell me how my Congressional office can 

help increase communication between the Tribes and USDA Rural 

Development and how well can the Tribes work to be certain that 

they have all of the USDA programs, know what they are and be 

able to access them? 

Mr. O’BRIEN. I appreciate that question, Senator. Certainly as I 

mentioned, an absolute goal of Secretary Vilsack to have a very roVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:52 Nov 26, 2012 Jkt 075282 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\75282.TXT JACK
20

bust relationship and consultation as we set our regulations and 

rules. We would appreciate the support of your office or any of the 

offices represented on this Committee. 

We have, as I mentioned, in each of the State offices, in particular active in those States that have a significant American Indian/Alaska Native population, a Native American coordinator. We 

also have an Office of Tribal Relations right here in Washington, 

D.C., to ensure that all of the programs within the broad spectrum 

of USDA take into consideration the effects of programs, processes 

that were presented and are trying to be improved. In fact, essentially, every one of the regulations that we undergo at Rural Development, one of the places that it goes through for approval is the 

Office of Tribal Relations, to get comment from the people there 

who are expert in what can be very complicated issues. 

We continue to plan to grow the consultation process that we developed in the last two years, and we welcome your office’s participation and your comments on how we can improve that 

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much. 

This one is to Mr. Blackwell. I am pleased that the recent Universal Service Fund reforms will directly address challenges facing 

Indian Country. The Tribal Mobility Fund and the Tribal Engagement Requirements I think are positive steps in the right direction. 

Mr. Blackwell, how do you envision the Tribal Engagement Requirements will work in practice, when it comes to rolling out 

broadband to Native American communities? And how soon would 

the proposed Tribal Mobility Fund begin expanding wireless access 

to under-served areas? 

Mr. BLACKWELL. Thank you, Senator. To begin with the second 

part of your question first, perhaps, the Tribal Mobility Fund, the 

first year of the Mobility Fund was actually $350 million, $50 million of which is allocated to Tribal lands. Tribal lands are of course 

eligible for the initial $300 million as well, and Tribal entities. The 

goal is to have that Mobility Fund Phase 1 in 2012, and to time 

the Tribal Mobility Fund in such time afterwards that, I am sorry, 

Mobility Phase 1 timed to occur in 2012 with disbursements in 

2013, and to time the $50 million Tribal Mobility Fund to follow 

thereafter. In time analysis can be done about the initial $300 million so that the $50 million can be effectively utilized. 

To answer the first part of your question, the Connect America 

Fund articulates what sort of discussions must include, at a minimum, in the Tribal engagement procedures. And directly from the 

order, there are just a few, very quickly, at a minimum, such discussions must include a needs assessment and deployment planning with a focus on Tribal community anchor institutions, feasibility and sustainability planning, marketing services in a culturally-sensitive manner, rights of way processes, land use permitting, facility siting, environmental and cultural preservation review 

processes and compliance with Tribal business and licensing requirements. 

The order envisions an annual certification both to the Commission and to Tribal governments. And we envision, the order also 

envisions that the Office of Native Affairs and Policy, in coordination with the Wireless Bureau to utilize our delegated authority to 

develop specific procedures for this Tribal engagement as well. 

21

Senator UDALL. Thank you for all your hard work over there at 

the FCC. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Udall. 

Senator Franken, your questions. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. O’Brien, I want to thank you for bringing up Bois Forte in 

your written testimony. And I want to thank, more importantly, 

USDA for what you have done in partnership with the Bois Forte 

Reservation. I have seen first-hand how economic development has 

tremendously benefitted that community and Chairman Leecy 

should be commended for his leadership and vision. 

I sit on both the Energy and obviously Indian Affairs Committee. 

Indian energy is of particular interest to me. Tribes and Bands in 

Minnesota have strong interest in developing energy resources on 

their lands. But year after year, they go unused and Tribal communities continue to suffer from extremely high rates of unemployment. In Minnesota, we have a lot of biomass resources. I think 

you talked about a project in California, a biomass project there. 

What is that? What is that project? What steps has your department taken to reduce administrative and regulatory hurdles that 

stand in the way of their businesses and like Senator Udall asked, 

how can my office help in facilitating getting biomass projects going 

in Minnesota? 

Mr. O’BRIEN. Thank you, Senator, for your question. We have a 

suite of energy programs in Rural Development and actually a few 

other agencies that were created primarily in the 2008 Farm Bill. 

I think the program that you are referring to is the Biomass Crop 

Assistance Program, which essentially supports efforts to utilize 

biomass to create energy. In fact, we were able to award a BCAP 

award to Dakota Energy in Shakopee, and innovative combined 

heat and power plant which generates electricity and heat by burning agriculture byproducts and grown energy crops to create heat. 

Senator FRANKEN. In Minnesota? 

Mr. O’BRIEN. Yes, sir. So there are not as many examples as, 

frankly, we would like. 

Senator FRANKEN. That is essentially burning biomass 

Mr. O’BRIEN. That is right, to create energy, yes. 

Senator FRANKEN. Energy and heat? Combined energy and heat? 

Mr. O’BRIEN. Yes, that is correct. And that is what the BCAP 

program is designed for. And there are some examples of it being 

utilized on Tribal lands, but not as many as we would like to see, 

because of some of the challenges, as the Chair pointed out in his 

statement. We have worked through the consultation process in all 

the regulatory, the regulatory process for all the Farm Bill programs, we utilized seven regional consultations to ensure that our 

programs fit and work on Tribal lands. I won’t sit here and say 

they are perfect right now. 

Senator FRANKEN. Well, I would love to have my office work with 

you on this. We do have a lot of biomass. And biomass is, you can 

do more than just burn it, you can burn it in more sophisticated 

ways, like gasification, more efficient ways. There is a lot you can 

do with biomass. 

Mr. O’BRIEN. Absolutely. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you. 

22

Mr. Blackwell, in your testimony you state that less than 10 percent of residents in Tribal lands have access to broadband. But you 

also discuss an instance in Utah where inaccurate data precluded 

a Tribe from receiving Federal grants or loans because it was overestimated what they had, right? 

Mr. BLACKWELL. Yes. 

Senator FRANKEN. How did the Utah State broadband mapping 

manager come up with their estimates? 

Mr. BLACKWELL. As I understand from that situation, the Utah 

State broadband mapping, she indicated that it was receiving information directly from the providers. The question that came from 

the representatives was how that data might, was it double 

checked and how was it double checked. And she indicated that 

there was not funding in the Act to be able to do that. 

Senator FRANKEN. So how is the FCC addressing that problem? 

Mr. BLACKWELL. I thank you very much for the question. Based 

on my experience, there are a number of Tribal leaders who also 

would thank you for that question. 

We work in concert with the NTIA, the Department of Commerce, under a memorandum of understanding, it is their responsibility under the Broadband Data Improvement Act for the National 

Broadband Map. And we provided technical assistance to them. 

Our office in particular has met with them on a couple of occasions 

to provide them with feedback and some suggestions. 

As I stated before with this Committee once before, I do believe 

that there is a way in which we might be able to work in concert 

to involve Tribal governments so that they have an opportunity for 

a voice there as well. 

Senator FRANKEN. Maybe I didn’t understand the full answer. 

That is what you are doing? 

Mr. BLACKWELL. Yes, sir. 

Senator FRANKEN. That is it? Okay, well, I appreciate your answer. I am not sure that is sufficient. 

Mr. BLACKWELL. Well, we can certainly look into doing more, sir. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Blackwell. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Franken. 

Mr. Blackwell, some Native telecom providers, especially in high 

cost areas like Hawaii and Alaska, have relied heavily on the USF 

to secure funding through programs like the RUS program at Agriculture. How will the FCC ensure that these RUS carriers will continue to provide services to Native people in these areas? I say that 

knowing full well that in the case of the Hawaiian Homelands 

Commission that that was set up by an act of Congress in 1920. 

And so I am interested in what your answer might be on this question. 

Mr. BLACKWELL. Well, to begin with, Hawaii, the entities that 

are required to be engaged in the engagement that I spoke about 

earlier in Hawaii, the Department of Hawaiian Homelands and the 

Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Most Tribal providers are rural rate of 

return companies and the Commission has been very sensitive to 

the needs of these companies to both repay their RUS loans and 

to be in a position to continue borrowing to build out for their 

broadband networks. 

23

Therefore, hopefully the bottom line is there are no immediate 

drastic cuts. Recognizing that sudden changes would be especially 

difficult for these small carriers serving remote areas, the Commission has avoided slash cuts and established a glide path, phasing 

in most of the changes to the carrier’s Universal Service support 

over a period of years. 

In the instance of Tribally-owned and operated telecommunications providers, we have within our further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking specific questions about potential impact on those entities in particular, and the effect of the reforms on them as well. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you very much. 

Now I would like to move on to the second panel. But I want to 

thank you very much for your responses and I look forward to continuing to work with you on these matters for Tribes and indigenous peoples. Thank you very much. 

I would like to invite the second panel to the witness table. Serving on our second panel is the Honorable Jefferson Keel, President 

of the National Congress of American Indians. Welcome. 

Mr. KEEL. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. It is good to have you here again before the Committee. Will you please proceed with your testimony? 

STATEMENT OF HON. JEFFERSON KEEL, PRESIDENT,

NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS;

ACCOMPANIED BY JACQUELINE JOHNSON–PATA,

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

Mr. KEEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to tell you how much I am honored to be here today on 

behalf of the National Congress of American Indians. This is an important hearing and I want to thank you and the members of the 

Committee for your work and help in this critical situation. 

I want to address two primary themes in my testimony today: 

honoring Tribes as governments and program flexibility to increase 

the return on Federal investment. The members of this Committee 

know that uncertainty around Indian lands is a barrier to economic 

development that could be removed in just an instant. Senator 

Akaka, you and Representative Cole got it right when you said in 

this oped piece here that the Carcieri fix is a no-cost way to build 

Tribal economies. That certainty would have economic ripple effects 

that would be felt well beyond our reservations and it wouldn’t cost 

a cent. 

On the Federal budget, we in Indian Country are in a challenging position after the collapse of the Super Committee. On the 

one hand, we have an Administration and Congress, especially the 

Senators on this Committee, who have fought hard to bring Indian 

Country funding to a level that has allowed us to see real progress. 

On the other hand, we have looming across the board budget cuts 

that threaten to undo all that good work. 

While the focus of this hearing is on regulatory reform, I must 

remind the Congress that the Federal Government’s trust responsibility is not a discretionary choice: it is a solemn promise. We urge 

you to continue to fight to hold Indian Country budgets harmless, 

and we truly need increases in key areas like law enforcement and 

education. 

24

Also, it is critical that Congress and the Administration ensure 

equal access to Tribes in all programs. An example where more 

work would bring major improvements is the American Jobs Act, 

where including Tribes alongside States and local governments to 

protect jobs of teachers and first responders and build infrastructure would create significant economic opportunities. 

Overall, NCAI is in favor of models like Self-Determination and 

the 477 program that permit Tribes to design their own programs 

and services, build Tribal capacity and use Federal funding more 

effectively. This could be expanded across the board to all Federal 

agencies. This is exactly what we should be doing, spending more 

dollars and time on services and less on administrative burdens, 

especially in areas like infrastructure and energy Development. 

Indian Country has one of the youngest populations in the Nation with 42 percent of Native people under the age of 25. Tribal 

colleges and universities are the key to workforce development 

training for thousands of Native people and other rural Americans. 

Including the TCUs in Federal workforce funding would create significant opportunities for new job creation. 

Interpreting the Green Jobs Title of the Energy Independence 

and Security Act to include Tribal governments, businesses and 

veterans associations would allow direct access for programs and 

technical assistance that are a critical part of the National effort 

to create green jobs. The Tribal set-aside should also be reinstituted for the YouthBuild program to allow Native youth to develop critical job skills. More than 10 years ago, the CDFI Fund reported a $44 billion 

unmet need for capital in Indian Country. That number has only 

grown, and there are specific, no-cost regulatory fixes. We urge the 

Committee to work with Treasury to ensure Tribal Economic Development Bond funding cap limits are adjusted to encompass larger-scale development projects. We also see significant potential in 

the expansion of the Bureau of Indian Affairs guaranteed loan program to ensure access to surety bonding for eligible Tribal and individual Indian-owned construction companies pursuing high level 

and high value projects. 

Match requirements for the Native CDFIs applying for funds 

from the CDFI Fund should be eliminated or amended to allow Native CDFIs to use other Federal Government money such as HUD 

or USDA grants as match funds. 

The United Nations recently identified access to the internet as 

a basic human right. However, as you have heard already, Tribal 

communities continue to experience low access. Low cost solutions 

to facilitate the build-out and deployment of broadband internet, 

telephone and radio access include reforming USDA lending policies to ensure Tribal eligibility for loans, establishing interagency 

collaboration between the Departments of Treasury, Agriculture 

and Interior with Tribes to identify financing options, and urging 

the FCC to provide Tribal priority to available spectrum and offer 

it to Tribes at discounted prices. 

Expanded domestic energy production is a high priority and 

there are barriers that could be removed with a stroke of a pen. 

The BLM’s discriminatory permit application fee to drill on Tribal 

trust land could be rapidly addressed by issuing a ruling that exVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:52 Nov 26, 2012 Jkt 075282 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\75282.TXT JACK
25

empts Tribal trust land from the $6,500 or lowers permit fees to 

a level comparable with State permits. 

Tribes are eager to see passage of the HEARTH Act, which 

would allow Tribes to speed up lease approval on Tribal lands. We 

support the Tribal Energy Development and Self-Determination 

Act Amendments. This bill would reduce existing administrative 

burdens and Tribes look forward to continuing our work with this 

Committee to enact the bill. 

Once again, I want to thank you for your vision and focusing on 

the critical role Tribes can play in creating jobs and getting America back to work. As you know, we believe in Indian Country that 

the best social program is a good job. And we are certainly willing 

to work with you and the Committee in trying to get our people 

back to work. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Keel follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JEFFERSON KEEL, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL CONGRESS

OF AMERICAN INDIANS

Introduction 

The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) is the intergovernmental body 

representing American Indian and Alaska Native tribal governments. For nearly 7 

years, tribal governments have come together as a representative congress through 

NCAI to deliberate issues of critical importance to tribal governments and advance 

consensus policy positions for the betterment of tribal nations and peoples. NCAI 

is honored to participate in the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs hearing to discuss strategies to enhance job creation and economic development for Native peoples. 

Tribal peoples have consistently demonstrated their keen ability to do more with 

less. When the tribes are released from burdensome oversight and requirements and 

are able to exercise their inherent right of self-government, innovations increase and 

the health and social and economic well-being of their peoples improves. The leaders 

of NCAI—elected tribal leaders from across the nation—constantly remind policymakers that tribal self-determination works, but to be truly effective, self-determination must continue to evolve and replicate across other dimensions of tribal 

governance, especially regarding economic development, monetary policy job creation, and use of tribal land and natural resources. It is both essential and mutually 

beneficial for the Federal Government to partner with tribes to address the challenges and leverage the economic opportunities to strengthen tribal self-governance. 

For generations, tribal communities and Native peoples have faced destructive 

economic conditions that are more pronounced than those of the current economic 

crisis. While economists and policy-makers worry as the national unemployment 

rate hovers around nine percent, Indian communities have wrestled with the farreaching impacts of unemployment rates that have well-exceeded ten percent for 

generations. Today tribal governments are facing the severe effect of the nation’s 

present economic downturn has on tribal economies and employment opportunities. 

The chronic underfunding of government programs serving basic tribal needs is 

well-documented, with the result that tribal governments often rely on revenue from 

their own economic development to fund programs and services for their citizens, 

including health care, affordable housing, education and infrastructure programs. 

As the rest of America is being challenged to meet basic needs with fewer resources, 

tribal governments are seeking to reduce inordinate and restrictive federal administrative burdens that slow and prevent economic self-fulfillment. 

Tribal economies, with their dependencies on Federal Government support and restrictions on access to capital and other financial support mechanisms are more at 

risk during economic fluctuations than other governments or communities. Economic development offers tribal governments the opportunity to complement government services provided to their peoples. 

This statement addresses several areas where improved access to funding and 

technology as well as smarter regulatory and legislative management can support 

economic development and continued job creation in tribal nations. Those areas are: 

Assessments of Legislative and Regulatory Frameworks, Access to Capital and Access to Broadband. 

26

1OMB Memorandum M–10–33 Guidance for Implementing E.O. 13175, ‘‘Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments’’ ( July 30, 2010)

I. Assessments of Legislative and Regulatory Frameworks 

Tribal nations continue to experience unemployment and poverty rates well above 

the national average. These rates are exacerbated by the nation’s current economic 

hardships. With deficit reduction efforts underway, it is imperative that the Administration and Congress honor the trust responsibility by allowing tribes greater flexibility to develop their economies. This may be achieved in the following areas by 

providing access to and streamlining federal programs and removing regulatory barriers impeding and disadvantaging economic development in Indian Country. 

A. Nation-to-Nation Partnership: The Framework for Economic Recovery 

A critical component of economic development and job creation in Indian Country 

resides in meaningful application and recognition of the governmental relationship 

between tribes and the Federal Government. The United States has a unique legal 

and political relationship with Indian tribes and Alaska Natives as provided in the 

Constitution of the United States, treaties, and Federal statutes. This relationship 

has been recognized by U.S. Presidents for decades and is reflected in the Administration’s adherence to a government-to-government relationship and support for 

tribal sovereignty and self-determination—most recently affirmed by President 

Obama’s November 5, 2009 memo to all federal agencies directing them to comply 

with Executive Order 13175 (E.O. 13175). The Executive Order provides a framework for a trust responsibility that extends across all federal agencies and not only 

the Department of the Interior (DOI). 

As highlighted by the Office of Management and Budget, 1 the requirements of the 

Executive Order far exceed listening sessions and consultations: 

(A)gencies must adhere, to the extent permitted by law, to specified criteria 

when formulating and implementing policies that have tribal implications. 

Agencies must:

• respect Indian tribal self-government and sovereignty, honor tribal treaty and 

other rights, and strive to meet the responsibilities that arise from the unique 

legal relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribal governments;

• with respect to Federal statutes and regulations administered by Indian tribal governments, grant Indian tribal governments the maximum administrative 

discretion possible;

• when undertaking to formulate and implement policies that have tribal implications,

1. encourage Indian tribes to develop their own policies to achieve program 

objectives;

2. where possible, defer to Indian tribes to establish standards; and

3. in determining whether to establish Federal standards, consult with tribal officials as to the need for Federal standards and any alternatives that 

would limit the scope of Federal standards or otherwise preserve the prerogatives and authority of Indian tribes.

Congress should consider enacting legislation consistent with the Executive Order 

so that the government-wide, nation-to-nation partnership between the United 

States and all Indian tribes can be meaningfully and fully implemented consistently 

across the Federal Government and ensuring that Native peoples—and the United 

States as a whole—fully benefit from the economic potential presented by our tribal 

nations. 

B. Recognition of Tribes as Governments in All Policy Areas 

i. Disadvantages in Tribal Access to Federal Funding 

Indian tribes are polities recognized in the U.S. Constitution whose governments 

have all of the privileges and immunities routinely reserved to other governments 

in the U.S. federal structure. Nonetheless, tribal governments often are not given 

the same opportunities provided to state or local governments. For example, the 

large federal appropriations in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act) for energy programs provided $12 billion to state governments and less 

than $65 million to tribal governments even though a truly comparative distribution 

recognizing state and tribal land mass (not to mention immense energy potential) 

would have justified more than $600 million to tribes. In addition, tribal nations are 

excluded by law or policy from dozens of federal natural resources programs that 

27

provide funding to state and local governments, collectively worth billions of dollars 

every year, and including signature programs like the Coastal Zone Management 

Act, the Community Forestry Assistance Act, and Land and Water Conservation 

Fund. 

ii. Disadvantages in Statutory Definitions of ‘‘Federal Lands’’

Similarly, within the definitional sections of some federal statutes, tribal lands 

are included in the definition of ‘‘federal lands’’ to the detriment of tribal nations, 

while other statutes exclude tribal lands from the definition of federal lands—again, 

to the detriment of tribal nations. For example, tribal lands are included as federal 

lands in the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the 

Coastal Zone Management Act (and related acts) and the levying of a $6500 fee for 

an application for a permit to drill on federal lands. These inclusions result in substantial administrative burdens and fees not applicable to other entities and landowners, placing tribes at a distinct competitive disadvantage, while also creating 

statutory exclusions of tribal lands from federal funding. In the latter case, the exclusion of tribal lands from the definition of ‘‘federal lands’’ disallows tribal governments from funding assistance for tribal lands under the Tribal Forest Protection 

Act. 

iii. Disadvantages When Tribal Governments Are Treated as Corporations 

Another problem caused by regulatory differences in treatment arises when tribes 

are not treated as governments, but are treated as corporations or businesses. Examples include revenue rulings from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) requiring 

1099 reporting from tribes for grants for educational and cultural support provided 

to their members; the use of ‘‘essential government function’’ analysis used to determine if tribal programs qualify for tax-exempt financing (which is not used to analyze state programs); and general taxing inequities which favor and allow states’ encroachment into the taxing jurisdiction of Indian tribes. 

However, when tribes are treated as sovereign nations, and given the flexibility 

to build their own programs and develop their own economies, they have shown the 

ability to succeed. For instance, the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEA), through the advent of 638 compacting, contributed immensely 

towards Indian tribes’ ability to fund tribal public safety programs, develop their 

own educational and health standards and facilities and establish tribal colleges 

that have enabled tribes to provide higher learning institutions for tribal people 

within their own communities. Through greater exercise of control, and within the 

spirit of self-governance, tribal programs have not only grown, but have improved 

in a manner that reflects tribal values and addresses specific community needs. 

The disproportional, and often conflicting, treatment of tribes in programs 

throughout the Federal Government deny tribes equal standing with state and local 

governments as well as economic development opportunities within areas such as 

the immense energy and natural resources potential on tribal lands. Equitable 

treatment of all governmental entities and meaningful implementation of the trust 

responsibility across all federal agencies require tribal access to such programs 

equal to that of states. Tribal nations urge Congress and the Administration undertake studies and create taskforces to identify and remedy these disparities and exclusions across all federal agencies. 

C. Streamlining Administrative Programs and Processes 

i. Consolidation of Programs 

Administrative programs consolidating federal resources and programs, such as 

the Department of Justice’s recently instituted Coordinated Tribal Assistance Solicitation (for law enforcement) and the Department of the Interior’s 477 program (for 

workforce development), recognize the unique reliance of tribal governments on discretionary spending sources to fund general tribal governance, and affirm tribal governments’ capability to manage such program areas responsibly. These programs 

allow tribes to concentrate on program development rather than multiple administrative burdens of grants management and reporting. Importantly, this streamlining 

is accomplished through the federal agencies’ willingness to acknowledge the unique 

sovereign status of Indian tribes, their needs as government bodies, and their responsibility to develop programs and services for their citizens. 

Tribal nations urge Congress and the Administration to undertake studies and 

create taskforces to explore, identify and enable consolidations in other program 

areas where multiple federal agencies provide funding and technical assistance for 

similar or related activities, including economic development, energy development, 

water infrastructure, technical assistance and planning, energy efficiency, natural 

resources management, and education. 

28

2 NCAI Policy Research Center, (2009), Exercising Sovereignty and Expanding Economic Opportunity Through tribal Land Management.

One example where proposed streamlining should be effective, but has not been 

implemented is the 477 Program. Indian Country has deeply appreciated the Obama 

Administration’s commitment to smarter government. In the current environment 

of constrained federal resources, streamlined federal programs are necessary. In this 

context, it is troubling that the Administration has thus far given tepid support—

and in some cases presented obstacles to the success of—the Indian Employment, 

Training, and Related Services Demonstration Act of 1992, otherwise known as the 

477 Program. The program allows for the voluntary participation of tribes to combine formula funded federal grants and funds, related to employment and training, 

into a single budget with a single reporting system. The lead agency in this demonstration is DOI, Office of Indian Energy and Economic Development. The formula 

funded programs include those offered through the BIA, Department of Labor 

(DOL), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Department of 

Education. There is no expiration date on this demonstration. 

Once programs and associated funds are consolidated under 477 they lose their 

separate identities and are spent in accordance with the ‘single budget’ plan. However, in a move contrary to the consolidation of the 477 effort, auditing provisions 

were changed under the March 2009 OMB A–133 Compliance Supplement issued 

by DOI—requiring tribes to deconsolidate their federal employment funds and training funds so that they could be audited individually for 2010 audits. The resulting 

need to reclassify and rebook entries for reporting purposes created large expenses 

for several tribes required to recreate records for each individual program that was 

consolidated under the 477 program. The Administration needs to support programs 

like 477 as successes and work to ensure their longevity, as well as more widespread participation throughout Indian Country, while recognizing inefficiencies and 

ineffective administrative burdens that result in greater overall expenses. 

ii. Streamlining Agency Policies and Procedures Regarding Lands and Natural Resources 

The Department of the Interior (DOI) exercises substantial oversight in Indian affairs. For instance, the Secretary of the Interior must approve land into trust applications, land transfers, leases for business development, and the sale of natural resources. Due to the bottleneck created by multiple oversight requirements and the 

inability to delegate authority, this oversight process hinders business development 

and acts as a disincentive to potential partnerships with outside entities. 

First and foremost, NCAI recommends immediate passage of the legislation designed to remedy the Supreme Court’s decision in Carcieri v. Salazar in 2009. The 

Court’s interpretation of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 runs contrary to 

over 75 years of consistent action by the Department of Interior to utilize the IRA 

as a tool to promote economic development and self-government by Indian tribes. 

We thank the Committee for its action to approve S. 676 and urge that Congress 

pass the legislation as soon as possible. 

Additionally, tribes encourage Congress to pass the Helping Expedite and Advance Responsible Tribal Homeownership (HEARTH) Act, (S. 703 and H.R. 205) 

which would allow tribes, if they choose, to exercise their political autonomy over 

lease approval on tribal lands. We hope that applications for the sale of resources 

will also be given priority treatment in the DOI’s decision-making process. 

Tribes are also encouraged by the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs introduction of the Indian Tribal Energy Development and Self-Determination Act Amendments (S. 1684), sponsored by Sen. Barrasso (R–WY) to spur the vast tribal energy 

potential for the economic development of their peoples and nearby communities. 

This bill would make it easier for tribes to create tribal energy development organizations and enter into tribal energy resources agreements with the Department of 

Interior so that many existing administrative burdens would be reduced or eliminated, and tribes—not DOI—would be the drivers and managers of the energy resources on their lands. Tribes look forward to continuing work with the Committee 

and Congress to enact the bill. 

iii. Leases, Resource Sales and Land Into Trust 

There is an extraordinary high backlog of leases and land into trust applications 

that have real implications for tribal economies. Research has demonstrated that 

some BIA regional offices have effectively prioritized land transactions with economic implications. 2 The Department of Interior should be compelled to institutionalize these best practices at the national level. If expedited, the approval of development projects, timber sales, agricultural leases, leases for right of way (e.g., to 

29

3GAO: Report to the Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Indian Programs—BIA Should Streamline Its Process for Estimating 

Land Rental Values, 2, June 1999. 

develop telecommunications infrastructure) and land into trust applications would 

quickly and effectively jumpstart tribal economies. 

The GAO issued a report that ‘‘found no statutory or regulatory requirement that 

appraisals be used to establish lease values,’’ 3 t the appraisal process remains an integral component to lease approval under current BIA procedures. Short of eliminating the appraisal procedure altogether, we recommend that tribes be given the 

liberty to select their own land appraisers, providing those appraisers maintain the 

proper certification and/or licensing requirements. This policy change would allow 

the tribe to partner with DOI to expedite the leasing process. 

iv. Amending Policies and Regulations 

On November 29, 2011, the Department of Interior published proposed revisions 

to the outdated leasing regulations at 25 CFR 162 that would streamline and expedite residential, business and wind and solar resource leasing. The proposed reforms 

would reduce or eliminate obstructions to tribal economic and renewable energy development. This simple regulatory change promises to directly stimulate economic 

growth in Native communities and benefit the American economy. 

The proposed rule would modify regulations governing the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ (BIA) process for approving surface leasing on lands the Federal Government 

holds in trust for tribes and individuals. Although great potential exists, very few 

tribally owned renewable energy projects have moved forward because of the disproportionate review processes tribes have been subject to. The proposed regulations 

impose timelines on the Department for reviewing leases—up to 30 days for residential leases, and up to 60 days for business leases and wind and solar energy leases. 

The Department of Energy estimates Indian lands contain significant renewable energy potential—enough to meet 32 percent of the nation’s energy needs with wind 

power and 2 times the entire country’s energy needs with solar power. 

We recommend the final rule be drafted to include leased rights of way, which, 

under current case law, fall within the regulatory jurisdiction of the outside entity. 

This is important because tribes sometimes lease rights of way to non-Indian entities to develop telecommunications infrastructure, not knowing that this action currently cedes jurisdiction. The result is that tribes expose themselves to outside taxation which does not benefit their communities. 

The potential for economic development and growth from this one regulatory 

change is expected to enable noticeable, beneficial changes for Indian nations and 

their citizens. We would encourage across-the-board reviews to discover and reduce 

similar burdensome and inconsistent regulatory and administrative requirements 

that do not support economic development and growth in Indian Country. For example, the fee required to drill on Indian lands is $6,500—payable to the Bureau of 

Land Management for each application for a permit—presents an inequitable disincentive to energy development on tribal lands. The scope of the disincentive is 

demonstrated by comparison with state fees. For example, in the state of Montana, 

the same fee ranges between $25 and $150. The fee was intended to target energy 

development on federal lands, not tribal trust lands, but unfortunately it has been 

interpreted in a manner which frustrates oil and gas development on Indian lands. 

Additionally, BLM should be required to retract BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 

2008–043, which included Indian minerals within the scope of the $6,500 fee. Also, 

BLM should be asked to issue a memorandum clarifying that Indian minerals are 

outside the scope of the energy development on federal lands targeted by the initial 

fee. 

v. Reducing and Eliminating Funding Match Requirements for Tribal Nations 

Match requirements for funding should be reduced, eliminated, or calibrated according to need, for tribal grant recipients. While many non-tribal grant recipients 

are organizations with an internal business component, tribal recipients are governments and must find matching funds from within their general revenue stream. 

Most tribes that are dependent on federal grants have extremely limited resources. 

Furthermore, because tribes lack the tax base available to other governments, or are 

deterred from imposing their own tax authority due to the existing and problematic 

exercise of taxing authority from other governments, imposing a match requirement 

on tribal governments frequently results in tribes scrambling to find matching funds 

from limited resources and often leads to the underutilization of funds or precludes 

tribes from applying for them. 

30

vi. Improving Methods of Data Collection in Indian Country 

Tribes need access to and control over their own data, as well as the ability to 

build data in areas where it is virtually nonexistent. While federal data collection 

itself does not stimulate business development, data is increasingly used to determine where and how scarce federal dollars are invested. Since 2000, no meaningful 

socioeconomic data about Indian Country as a whole has been produced by the U.S. 

government. The widely-documented concerns of rural and remote communities 

about the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) are even greater in 

Indian Country. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) essentially excludes data from 

Indian reservations in the monthly labor force reports, and there is a wide discrepancy between DOI labor force reports and those presented by BLS. 

Also, the DOI retains vastly important land data but, as of yet, has chosen not 

to share this data with tribes. Land data is increasingly pivotal in areas such as, 

but not limited to, determining the extent and value of natural resources as well 

as the land consolidation provisions within the Cobell Settlement. Broadband mapping on tribal lands is also an area where data might be improved through better 

cooperation with states and federal funding sources for such mapping. These data 

deficiencies impair the ability of tribal, federal, state, and local policymakers to 

identify and respond effectively to the needs of tribal nations. They place tribes and 

Native non-profits at a competitive disadvantage when applying for federal grant 

funding. Finally, they make assessment of programs virtually impossible for tribes 

and the Federal Government. 

Cost neutral improvements could be made to data collection by ensuring more effective coordination among existing federal research studies. For example, the Native American Lending Study at the Community Development Financial Institutions 

(CDFI) Fund could be more closely coordinated with the Native American Housing 

Study being conducted at the Department of Housing and Urban Development 

(HUD). In other areas covered in this report, interagency collaboration can promote 

critical access to data in natural resources, energy, education, etc. We recommend 

interagency collaboration to ensure support of basic surveys and inventories so 

tribes have accurate and current data to support tribal decisionmaking. Savings 

gained from collaboration could be applied to the collection of additional primary 

data from Indian Country. 

vii. Access to Information 

As the Administration demonstrated with the Recovery.gov clearinghouse, access 

to information is critical to efficient and effective utilization of federal resources. A 

similar, cross-department approach in the economic development sector would provide tribes and tribal members better training and access to the variety of economic 

development opportunities available from the Department of the Treasury, the 

Small Business Association (SBA), the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the United 

States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Department of Commerce, as well as 

other federal agencies. This initiative could also map existing economic development 

programs that exclude tribes and make recommendations for regulatory or legislative fixes to ensure tribes are afforded equal opportunity to participate in those programs. A particular focus of these efforts would be to ensure that all Federal Government agencies review their legislative mandates and policies to include ‘‘and tribal governments’’ wherever state governments are eligible for services and funding. 

To ensure success, this approach begins and ends with acknowledging the unique 

governing status of tribal nations and their particular community needs. 

D. Recognizing Tribes as Sovereign Nations in Federal Legislation 

Legislation based on nation-to-nation relations in the area of economic development has also had success in Indian Country. The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act 

of 1988 (IGRA) was enacted, for the most part, to settle jurisdictional questions between federal, state, and tribal governments. The jurisdictional questions which led 

to the enactment of IGRA pitted states against tribes and were rooted in the belief 

that tribal governments lacked the inherent authority to develop their own economies through gaming. Currently, Indian gaming is a $26.5 billion industry and has 

provided the foundation for many tribes to ensure quality social programs, infrastructure development, educational support and other services are available to their 

citizens. Congress, through powers enumerated in the Indian Commerce Clause, affirmed tribes’ authority to develop their economies through gaming, even where tribal gaming was contrary to state law. 

Similar battles have occurred for years in the area of tribal tax policy, where the 

lack of congressional involvement has allowed the judicial branch and interpretations from federal agencies to develop tribal tax law on a case by case basis. The 

resulting inconsistent tax policy fails to protect the taxing jurisdiction of Indian 

31

tribes and predominantly favors states’ interest in taxing transactions occurring on 

tribal lands. 

Additionally, tribes need to be expressly included in legislative proposals to protect state and local government budgets. For example, provisions in the American 

Jobs Act to stabilize funding for teachers and first responders and invest in 21st 

century infrastructure inconsistently address (or are silent on) tribal eligibility for 

these programs. Given the critical role tribes play in many of America’s regions, especially in rural areas, equal access to fiscal stabilization funding is critical for all 

Americans, including Native peoples. 

Furthermore, it is worth noting that when tribes are successful, they contribute 

not just toward the overall well-being of their own communities, but often towards 

the well-being of the surrounding local communities. As an example, through tribalstate gaming compacts, Indian tribes routinely contribute significant dollars in gaming revenue to support local governments. Also, tribes have created hundreds of 

thousands of jobs for both Indians and non-Indians through construction contracting, hotel and resort management, law enforcement, emergency support services and gaming facilities operation as well as natural resource development. Even 

with these successes, tribes are still in need of greater administrative flexibility—

when it comes to economic development in Indian Country, one thing is clear: tribes 

know what tribes need to succeed. 

Throughout the various eras of the Federal Government’s policy towards Indian 

tribes, the majority of tribal communities have largely been dependant on federal 

funding—in particular, discretionary funding. Looking at the current economic 

downturn and its projected effects on discretionary government spending, Indian 

tribes are in dire need of greater opportunities through little to no costs. Strengthening the nation-to-nation partnership between the United States and Indian Nations will better equip tribes to continue the development of their economies and 

help their neighboring communities. In this context, tribes have identified broad recommendations in areas such as budget appropriations, promoting partnerships with 

the private sector, improving access to capital, natural resources, education and 

workforce development, infrastructure development, healthcare, public safety, and 

agriculture. The specific recommendations are included in the Program Flexibility 

Matrix which can be found at tinyurl.com/TNC2011.

II. Access To Capital 

While many tribes have succeeded in the area of business development and job 

creation, other tribal governments and individual tribal citizens have struggled to 

access the necessary capital to build strong, healthy economies within their sovereign territories. Strategies towards expanding access to capital include: (1) facilitating greater access to traditional financing tools; (2) alleviating administrative 

barriers to economic development; and (3) promoting financial stability and individual entrepreneurship on tribal lands. 

A. Facilitating Greater Access to Traditional Financing Tools 

Financial capital is the foundation of business development as well as the primary 

factor required for developing energy resources on tribal lands. While there are a 

host of financing opportunities available for business development in general, sometimes tribes experience difficulty making use of these opportunities due to regulatory barriers or lack of information. 

i. Protecting Tribal Tax Jurisdiction 

Tribal tax policy is the result of Supreme Court precedent and agency interpretations issued by the Internal Revenue Service. Both of these ‘rulemaking’ processes 

are accomplished on a case-by-case basis, which results in inconsistent tax policy 

towards tribal nations. This Committee and Congress should recognize tribal nations’ exclusive jurisdiction to levy taxes on tribal lands. The ability to levy taxes 

is one of the primary functions of a government, yet Indian tribes are often asked 

to share critical tax revenue with outside jurisdictions, sometimes in the form of discriminatory dual taxation, with no assurance that any of that taxing revenue will 

be redistributed from the outside jurisdiction back to the tribal nation in the form 

of services or programs. On the federal level, tribal leaders agree that federal tax 

policy implicating Indian tribes needs to recognize the governmental status of Indian nations equal to other government authorities, and support the inherent exclusive authority for tribes to levy taxes within their tribal lands. This recognition will 

enable tribes to build core governance funding that may be used to fund government 

programs, services, and secure government bonds on the market, without interference from outside entities. During the current economic downturn, this recognition of tribal taxing jurisdiction becomes of paramount concern. 

32

4See Indian Financing Act, 25 U.S.C. § § 1451. 5See Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 149 (b). 

ii. Tax-Exempt Financing 

Tax-exempt financing is largely unavailable to Indian tribes for three reasons: (1) 

the ‘‘essential government function’’ threshold (required by Section 7871 (c) (1) of 

the Internal Revenue Code (IRC)) that tribal projects must meet to qualify for taxexempt financing; (2) tribes’ general lack of access to the investment market; and 

(3) the lack of a strong tax base. Barriers to accessing tax-exempt finance pose a 

significant inequity for tribal governments and their citizens but also negatively impact surrounding rural and regional economies. 

The ‘‘essential government function’’ analysis has restricted the use of tax-exempt 

financing for Indian tribes only to those development projects which lack any commercial component (e.g., schools, roads, sewer systems, hospitals). In contrast, states 

and local governments are able to use tax-exempt financing to develop projects 

which may or may not contain a commercial component—e.g., marinas, convention 

centers and golf courses —as long as the majority of either the use of the facility 

or the funds used to secure the bond are governmental in nature. We recommend 

eliminating the essential government function test in favor of treating tribes like 

states and local governments. 

In addressing the second and third concerns—lack of access to the investment 

market and lack of a strong tax base—we propose the Indian Finance Act and the 

Internal Revenue Code be amended to allow federal guarantees to back tribal bonds 

on the market. Traditionally, states and local governments secure their bonds 

through their tax base. This tax base consists of property tax, income tax, sales tax, 

and other taxing streams which generate enough revenue to use as collateral for 

bond security purposes. Most tribes exercise a modest sales tax, a hotel tax and gas 

taxes, but are constantly competing with neighboring states over the right to tax 

transactions within the tribal jurisdiction. Currently, the Indian Financing Act prohibits federal guarantees as a source of security for tax-exempt bonds. 4 Ensuring 

federal guarantees are available to back tribal bond offerings will allow tribes to use 

their bonding authority and capability more effectively and frequently, creating jobs 

and business development on the reservation. 

Additionally, the IRC currently prevents tax-exempt treatment of any bond 

backed by federal guarantees. 5 We recommend bonds guaranteed by DOI for tribal 

tax-exempt bond issuances be added to the exceptions listed within Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 149 (b). Taken together, these proposed amendments to the 

Indian Financing Act and the IRC would expand the tax-exempt financing realm beyond wealthy tribes to include tribes with moderate capital resources to leverage. 

Currently, both IRS and Treasury are seeking comments from tribes regarding 

the reallocation of Tribal Economic Development (TED) Bond funds. TED Bonds 

were authorized under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The 

purpose of the TED Bond component of ARRA was to boost economic development 

projects in Indian Country and to serve as a pilot project, whereby tribal governments would be able to issue tax-exempt bonds on a level of parity with state and 

local governments. The TED Bonds have largely remained underutilized due to a 

variety of factors, including the national economic climate which has been dismal 

for the overall bond market. One suggestion we offer is that the $30 million cap on 

TED Bond allocations be raised, or eliminated altogether, to ensure tribes have access to better financing options. Tribes do not want to obtain two debt sources for 

one development project. As it stands, if a tribe wants to finance a $50 million hotel 

using TED Bonds, they must seek the additional $20 million from another source. 

Tribes would like the opportunity to develop these types of projects within a single 

finance obligation. The Treasury Department needs to reallocate the remaining 

funds for another bond offering with suggestions such as this in mind. The TED 

Bond component of ARRA presents a great development opportunity for tribes and 

should be maximized under existing resources. 

B. Facilitating Capital Investment for Tribal Development Projects 

Also, tribes need better access to capital investment tools to help facilitate economic development projects. The New Markets Tax Credit (NMTC) is an increasingly important catalyst for private sector investments that create jobs and enhance 

access to capital for small businesses and community development, especially in distressed communities like Indian reservations. While the NMTC has limitations concerning what activities qualify, as well as what types of communities are targeted 

as beneficiaries, the IRS has issued guidance that identifies an Indian tribe as a 

33

6See IRS Publication: New Markets Tax Credit, Chapter 1: Introduction to New Markets Tax 

Credit, 1; Chapter 2: Issues at the CDE Level, 14, May 2010; Adopting the definition of ‘‘targeted 

population’’ within the American Job Creation Act of 2004, IRC § 45D(e)(2). 

targeted population, 6 meaning that tribal corporations are qualifying businesses for 

project financing through the use of NMTCs. However, because of the complicated 

nature of utilizing NMTCs, tribes have generally steered clear of them as a potential financing option. Under the NMTC program, the actual credit is passed through 

a Community Development Entity (CDE) to potential investors. Tribes need assistance in locating CDEs that are willing to contribute towards economic development 

projects in Indian Country through the use of NMTCs. Furthermore, tribes should 

have the ability to monetize existing credits, such as accelerated depreciation and 

the Indian Employment Tax Credit, which currently only benefit non-Indian businesses operating on tribal lands. 

The Treasury’s 1603 grant program provides cash grant incentives for renewable 

energy projects. However, this funding is not available to governments, including 

tribal governments. We recommend policy changes that would allow tribal governments, through Section 17 Corporations, wholly owned tribal entities, or ANCSA 

corporations to use Section 1603 grants. 

Allowing tribal governments to use Section 1603 grants to finance energy projects 

will help alleviate the taxation issues which often stagnate energy development in 

Indian Country and, in turn, deny the nation access to a critical renewable energy 

source while undermining tribal economic development potential. Policies that encourage tribes to partner with outside entities have also been used to penalize that 

same partnership through dual taxation (as established in case law). By allowing 

tribes to use Section 1603 grants for energy development projects, tribes would be 

encouraged to take an ownership interest in these projects, expediting tribal energy 

projects and supporting their success. 

Next, expansion of the BIA’s guaranteed loan program will reduce the perceived 

risk that insurance companies associate with tribal governments due to the doctrine 

of sovereign immunity. It will also increase insurance industry access to infrastructure and other construction-related projects, and generate job opportunities and 

business growth during difficult economic times at no, or very limited, cost to the 

Federal Government. 

A change that would assist tribal business development is the use of existing authorities to provide surety bond guarantees for tribal construction businesses. Lack 

of surety bonding for tribes is one of the largest barriers to entry and growth in 

federal contracting construction in a highly competitive and capital intensive sector. 

Construction is also an area with a much higher probability of providing direct employment for tribal members and ANCSA shareholders. From a regulatory standpoint, this facility could be made available, but limited to businesses meeting certain goals such as tribal member employment opportunities or other metrics. 

i. Promoting Public-Private Partnerships 

In a time of constrained federal resources, the Administration can contribute significantly to economic growth in Indian Country by using its convening power to 

draw the attention of private sector and philanthropic investors to the opportunities 

presented by tribal nations. As an example, financial institution access could be enhanced by convening a strategy session with large financial institutions, small and 

medium banks, Native Community Development Financial Institutions (NCDFIs), 

and tribal leaders to develop innovative partnerships. Also, to address surety bonding utilization, the Administration could convene tribal enterprises with surety 

bonding companies. Using the White Horse Rural Council as a framework, the Administration could draw particular attention to the underinvestment by philanthropy in tribal nations and convene large foundations to seek commitments to coinvest in Indian Country. There are many other opportunities with respect to labor 

programs and broadband deployment as listed below. 

There are additional areas where small changes could have large, lasting effects. 

With respect to energy efficiency, revision of DOE weatherization regulations and 

policies to include tribal programs would enable tribes to receive funding directly, 

without needing to prove that state programs do not serve their members. Tribal 

governments should be exempted from the registration and disclosure rules set forth 

in the Securities Act of 1933, as are state and local governments (Securities Act of 

1933, 15 U.S.C. 77c (a) (2), (b)). As a result of this disparity, tribes must either bear 

the registration costs or issue bonds into the private placement market, which generally provides inferior terms. 

34

7 Native CDFI Network, The Utilization of Federal Funding Resources by Native CDFIs: Survey of Native CDFIs, 4, January 2011. 

C. Promoting Financial Stability and Entrepreneurship on Tribal Lands 

As tribal economies begin to grow, local financing needs for businesses, individuals, and tribes, increase and are exacerbated by the lack of financial institutions 

serving their communities. The Administration can help support the development of 

tribal financial institutions serving Indian Country and shape the services provided 

by outside financial institutions currently situated to help tribal members. 

i. Supporting Development of Tribal Financing Institutions 

Currently, there are more than 60 certified Native CDFIs located in 18 states 

serving Indian country, Alaska, and Hawaii. The majority of these operate in lowincome rural communities. CDFIs provide a wide range of financial products and 

services including microenterprise loans, small business loans, consumer loans, 

mortgage financing, financial education courses and credit repair. As such, Native 

CDFIs play a vital role in developing financial security within tribal communities, 

many of which have little to no access to local banking institutions. 

In a recent nationwide survey of Native CDFIs, 90 percent of respondents indicated receiving federal funding in the last 10 years. However, when asked about 

their experiences and utilization of funding from six federal departments that commonly fund community development, 58 percent of the programs were used by less 

than 3 NCDFIs. Ten of the 31 listed federal programs were not used by any of the 

participating NCDFIs. 7 This demonstrates a clear need for better agency outreach 

and coordination to ensure the success of Native CDFIs. 

Also, as with other economic success stories in Indian Country, effectively ‘‘telling 

the story’’ to ensure other tribes can benefit from lessons learned is invaluable. The 

Administration should direct the Native Initiative of the CDFI Fund to gather best 

practices in CDFIs serving Native and other rural and disadvantaged communities. 

Since Indian Country is severely under banked, it is critical that these successes 

be shared with tribal governments in appropriate regional and national settings. 

The few Native communities that do have bank branches on their reservations are 

afflicted by one of two challenges: (1) being served by small or intermediate small 

banks whose Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) exams are not sufficiently robust; 

or, (2) being served by branches of large banks that can offset underinvestment in 

Native communities with lending activities elsewhere. It is critical for the agencies 

to both remove exemptions from data reporting and other tests for small banks (as 

was done, for example, in the Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Bill), and add a community development component to the CRA exam for large banks. We need an exam 

methodology that incentivizes the investment in community infrastructure to serve 

remote, rural, and especially, reservation communities. The current structure of 

large bank exams allows a lack of community focused lending to be offset by home 

or business lending in other communities (often urban communities). 

The agencies should also impose meaningful penalties on banks that fail to receive satisfactory grades on their CRA exams. One bank in South Dakota, located 

in the midst of the Lake Traverse Reservation of the Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate, has 

received ‘‘needs to improve’’ as its grade on all five CRA exams since 1996 with no 

clear consequences for this ongoing non-compliance. It is also striking the degree to 

which Performance Evaluations (PEs) of banks that serve communities with large 

Native populations completely exclude analysis of bank service to tribal nations. 

Agencies must require that PEs that cover banks whose service areas include substantial tribal lands and/or Native populations assess the degree to which those institutions serve the Native communities in question. 

ii. Encouraging Entrepreneurship on Tribal Lands 

While tribal governments have made great strides in developing their economies 

with the financing tools available to them, individual tribal members still face the 

highest unemployment rate of any other minority group, and individual entrepreneurship remains largely underdeveloped among Indian peoples. Indian people interested in developing business ventures must be included within any policy promoting economic development in Indian Country.

Buy Indian Procurement Requirements

No single measure would do more to help resuscitate Indian Country employment, 

particularly in manufacturing, than an encompassing Buy Indian government procurement requirement. All infrastructure projects funded and guaranteed by the 

Federal Government and the proposed infrastructure bank should require purchases 

to be made in Indian Country rather than overseas, consistent with our international trade agreements. The Defense Authorization Bill passed in December that 

35

requires the Pentagon to buy solar panels from U.S. manufacturers is a good model. 

Further, to qualify as ‘‘Made in Indian Country,’’ at least 75 percent of the content 

should have to be manufactured within tribal borders. To make that happen, the 

White House by Executive Order and Congress by legislation should require domestic content calculations to be effective and transparent. 

In addition, Congress needs to enact an all-Indian successor to the 1933 Buy 

American Act. No regulations to implement the Buy Indian Act have been issued 

in 75 years. Through a combination of regulation and expanded legislation, the Administration should support long-overdue regulations and changes to the Buy Indian 

Act which ensure that preference is given to on-reservation Native individuals and 

enterprises, and ANCSA corporations, in awarding contracts, and subsequent subcontracts, with DOI, Indian Health Service (IHS) and other agencies serving American Indian and Alaska Native populations. The Buy Indian Act should also be 

amended to require the recipient of a contract to provide training and employment 

preferences to Native people. Furthermore, consultation was held, March 2010, on 

draft regulations for the Buy Indian Act. Yet, to date, DOI has failed to release its 

final regulations.

Government Contracting

Government contracting in Indian Country, through the tribal 8(a) program has 

been subject to more regulatory oversight from both the Small Business Administration and Department of Defense than most other contracting programs. The regulatory oversight combined with Congressional oversight has had a chilling effect on 

the very agencies that the Native communities rely on for contracting revenue. The 

tribal 8(a) program has already been altered in the Senate by placing a justification 

requirement on contracts exceeding $20 million. This is a far lower threshold than 

that applied to other sole source awards. Tribes use the 8(a) program to support the 

economic health of entire communities, and it has proven effective regardless of a 

tribe’s location or size, making it a viable tool for all tribal governments. To support 

this effective incentive for tribal governments, the Administration should demonstrate their clear and unambiguous support for the program and provide certainty 

in the contracting marketplace. 

We further recommend that the price evaluation adjustments of up to 10 percent 

when bidding on federal contracts in certain industries be expanded to all industries. This adjustment would encourage greater participation in the program at a 

time when Section 811 has had a chilling effect on government contractors. 

Also, the Administration should support legislative language that elevates the Office of Native American Affairs (Office) within the Small Business Administration 

(SBA). With limited authority and resources, the Office promotes Native-owned 8(a) 

business development, HUB Zone empowerment and other government contracting, 

entrepreneurial education, and capital access. It is necessary that the Office be 

brought into line with other administrators at the SBA and have the capacity to 

provide funding for Indian-focused technical services through tribal colleges and existing service providers. 

Other non-tribe specific SBA opportunities, such as the SBA 7(a) program, offer 

potential funding opportunities. The 7(a) program provides financial help for businesses that handle exports to foreign countries, businesses that operate in rural 

areas, and for other specific purposes. The loans offered to businesses operating in 

rural areas are smaller, yet have a more streamlined, simplified application process. 

Similarly, the SBA Section 504 loans operate in conjunction with community-based 

non-profit organizations. More information needs to be accessible to individual tribal 

members interesting in starting their own business ventures.

Specific Recommendations to Expand Access to Capital

The specific recommendations are included in the Program Flexibility Matrix 

which can be found at tinyurl.com/TNC2011.

III. Access To Broadband 

The United Nations recently announced that access to the Internet is a basic 

human right because it facilitates civic engagement, assists economic development 

initiatives, promotes long distance learning and telemedicine, and is an invaluable 

source of information. However, tribal communities continue to experience low access and connectivity rates for basic broadband and analog telephone services. 

Where competitive forces have facilitated the build out and deployment of 

broadband Internet, telephone and radio access, tribal communities have experienced numerous bureaucratic and financial barriers to access. Even without competition, local service providers have not provided adequate service to Indian lands 

within their jurisdictions. 

Analog telephone (basic telephone service) penetration rates on tribal lands are 

at 67.9 percent compared to 98 percent across the nation. The disparity on tribal 

36

lands pertaining to Internet access is even higher due to the lack of infrastructure 

required to support standard Internet delivery over twisted pair, cable and satellite 

transmissions. The Federal Government, through its trust responsibility, congressional passage of the 1934 Communications Act and subsequent amendments 

through the 1996 Telecommunications Act, has a fiduciary responsibility to provide 

avenues of access for connectivity and universal service in tribal communities. The 

establishment of a reliable telecommunications infrastructure across Native lands is 

essential to the operation of tribal government, health care, education, and public 

safety as well as economic development. 

A. Rural Development Loan Program 

Approximately 500 rural telecommunications companies receive loans from 

USDA’s Rural Development, Rural Utilities Service (RUS). Out of those 500, eight 

(8) are tribally owned/operated telecommunications authorities operating on tribal 

lands that have acquired eligible telecommunications carrier (ETC) designation from 

the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). RUS loans are provided for the 

purpose of providing funding for facilities and equipment to upgrade, maintain, and 

expand deployment of broadband services. However, these loans are not available 

to tribes pursuing start up initiatives for their own telecommunications companies 

because the USDA is unable to provide loans to entities that would provide competition with rural carriers receiving similar loans from the USDA. In reality, if the incumbent companies were providing broadband service in these geographies, there 

would not be the disparity or lack of broadband service that currently exists on 

Tribal lands. If there is no service or degraded service, then funding tribes to own/

operate broadband facilities would not present any competition to the rural carriers. 

The current USDA obstacle unnecessarily prevents tribes from developing their own 

telecommunications abilities and providing vital services to their reservations. Additionally, the lack of competitive provision of telecommunications and broadband 

service to tribal lands creates a disincentive for the rural carriers to create, expand 

or improve services to those areas. While the USDA loan program has enabled some 

tribes to establish their own telecommunications, it has not been inclusive of tribes 

seeking these capital loans if they will provide competition to nearby rural telecommunications companies. 

The eight tribal telecommunications companies that have attained ETC designation have increased broadband connectivity to their communities by 300–900 percent. Tribal ETC designations should not be halted or barred if a rural telecommunications company operates a service area that extends within tribal reservation boundaries. Service areas must be redefined to accommodate a tribal ETC designation. Tribes should also be given first right of refusal to access spectrum over 

their own lands. 

We would urge Congress to reform USDA lending policies to ensure tribal eligibility for loans even when they provide competition to rural telecommunications 

companies/cooperatives and to redefine service areas to accommodate tribal ETC 

designations if a rural carrier holds spectrum over tribal lands. Additionally, Congress should mandate and fund a program that effectively identifies and communicates information about federal programs that offer tribes competitive financing 

options (e.g. low interest rates and extended repayment terms or the waiver of nonduplication restrictions, matching fund requirements, or credit support requirements from any loan or grant administered by federal agencies). Congress should 

restore full funding for the USDA Office of Tribal Relations sufficient to support 

staff, education and training on USDA programs available to tribes. Finally, Congress should mandate the creation and funding of a position within the USDA RUS, 

to be filled by an American Indian or Alaska Native, to encourage further collaborative efforts with tribes. 

B. E–911 Upgrade Requirements 

Full access to emergency services is an essential component of a business-friendly 

reservation environment. Unfortunately many tribal communities across the nation 

lack analog and/or digital access to E–911 services. Broadband services are an essential life saving utility that should provide tribal communities with security and 

assurances that emergency services are available and adequately attainable through 

E–911. 

Another critical public safety feature related to E–911 is the Automatic Location 

Identification data base. ALI failure occurs when a phone number is not located in 

the database and the Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) operator must ask the 

caller of their location and redirect them to an appropriate PSAP that services that 

area. Since many non-tribal members are unaware of the areas/names of tribal 

37

8See Connect America Fund et al., WC Docket No. 10–90 et al., Report and Order and Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 11–161 (rel. Nov. 18, 2011) (USF/ICC Transformation 

Order and FNPRM).

lands this leads to prolonged EMS and law enforcement response times that can 

have life-threatening consequences. 

Ensuring tribes are a part of this critical piece of 21st century infrastructure requires efforts by the Congress and Administration to ensure tribes are included in 

HR 2629 ‘‘Next Generation 9-1-1 Advancement Act of 2011.’’ The goal of this proposed legislation is to foster migration from analog, voice-centric 9-1-1 to a next generation IP-based model. However, many tribes across the nation currently do not 

have access to even basic analog telephone services and therefore this gap to access 

for emergency services on tribal lands will increase if tribal consideration is not 

given and access to broadband is not secured.

a) Urge the FCC to alter the definition of ‘library’ to allow eligibility for tribal 

libraries to receive E-Rate support.

b) Ensure funding mechanisms allow tribes access to technical assistance to assess infrastructure and appropriate technological and service solutions for deployment and maintenance of broadband services on tribal lands.

C. Universal Service Fund 

Potential tribal access to the Connect America Fund (CAF), announced in October 

2011 by the FCC, 8 would offer significant improvements to the current broadband 

coverage deficit. The CAF is designed to provide funding for access to a network 

that will be capable of providing high-quality voice-grade service and broadband in 

the most remote areas of the nation. We are encouraged that the FCC has stated 

its intention to rely on incentive-based, market-driven policies, including competitive 

bidding, to distribute universal service funds as efficiently and effectively as possible. However, we are concerned that exclusions of ‘‘extremely high cost areas’’ from 

some requirements and 2–3 year phase-in following additional rulemaking on the 

tribal Mobility Fund, combined with potential delays while the FNPRM responses 

are analyzed and incorporated into an Order, may result in Indian country being 

the last area of the United States to begin to have access to broadband service foreseen by this latest universal service effort. As the history of ‘‘Universal Telephone 

Service’’ displayed, communities that remain unserved and underserved when Congress and the Agencies change focus and funding away from Indian country will 

thereafter continue to be unserved and underserved. Additionally, as the nation begins its transition from analog to digital services there needs to be an assurance 

that tribes will have timely and increased ability to own, access, develop and enhance digital services within their respective communities. 

To achieve the maximum potential of voice and broadband implementation in tribal areas, Congress and the FCC need to focus on three interrelated areas—all of 

which need to be addressed concurrently:

• Infrastructure and Technology Support; 

• Workforce Development and Member Education; and 

• Interagency Education and Management of Grant and Loan Support.

Infrastructure and Technology Support

Leg one of this triad includes building out the infrastructure—from the first shovel to the installation of network hardware and software. This leg may also include 

starting up the business operations to support the new broadband facilities. In addition to creating local jobs and economic stimulus in architectural and planning, contracting, construction and technology businesses, this phase requires additional access to capital and technical training. Following the initial construction, tribal networks will continue to support a workforce both to maintain the network operations 

and manage the financial side of the network business. Tribes need access to loans, 

grants and other capital infusions to benefit quickly and efficiently from new 

broadband and communications capabilities on their lands.

Workforce Development and Member Education

The second leg of the triad—workforce development and tribal member education—is necessary to allow the tribe to fully realize the capabilities of access to 

broadband services. Additional training and training and workshops will be needed 

to prepare medical professionals and facilities, schools and educators, safety and enforcement teams and businesses for broadband capabilities relevant to their fields. 

This training needs to go far beyond software upgrades and new computers because 

it needs to be designed for professionals who have not had the most basic Internet 

38

services until now. Of course, once businesses have established an Internet presence, they will need to learn and establish processes for fulfillment, both domestic 

and international. Individual tribal members are also likely to need increased training in basic Internet skills, privacy protection, protection from hacking and viruses 

and special precautions applicable to their youngest and older populations. For all 

new users, the learning curve of the Internet is steep, especially when combined 

with ongoing technical changes in hardware and software.

Interagency Education and Management of Grant and Loan Support

The third, supportive base of the triad on which both of the other legs rely is access to capital. Capital will be required to obtain spectrum, finance infrastructure, 

acquire network routers and other technology, train tribal members, build websites 

and generally stand up businesses, medical systems, school systems, enforcement 

and emergency support and other broadband-dependent access. While other areas 

of this paper focus on the variety of challenges tribal governments have to capital, 

there are federal programs currently available that could provide financing alternatives from the first shovel of construction through opening day of the local business. 

Properly coordinated, the loan and grant programs operated through the Federal 

Communications Commission, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of 

Commerce, the Small Business Administration, the Department of Justice and the 

Department of the Interior should be coordinated to ensure that all three elements 

of the broadband triad are being supported simultaneously. Toward this end, Congress should continue to recognize and allocate funding specifically for the FCC Office of Native Affairs and Policy, the USDA Office of Tribal Relations, the Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration, the Small Business Administration Office of Native American Affairs and other federal organizations that 

manage funding programs into Indian Country. Finally Congress should fund an 

inter-agency program with responsibility and funding to coordinate educational material (that is not reliant on Internet dissemination) and provide face-to-face training to tribal governments, social services organizations and businesses on all federal 

funding sources, regardless of the funding agency. 

D. Tribal Lands Bidding Credit 

The Tribal Lands Bidding Credit (TLBC) was introduced by the FCC to provide 

an incentive for telecommunications companies to expand broadband services to 

tribal lands that have a penetration rate equal to or lower than 85 percent. These 

credits were awarded to winning bidders and were meant to offset infrastructure deployment costs but have failed to expand broadband services to tribal communities. 

Some of the shortfalls surrounding the TLBC program include:

• tribal communities unable to acquire spectrum licenses;

• lack of increased coverage to unserved and underserved tribal populations and 

geographic areas;

• commercial providers unable/unwilling to include tribal provisions for service; 

and

• limited support for tribal public safety efforts including the enhancement of 

wireless Public Safety Answering Points in tribal communities.

Additionally, this Committee should inquire why the TLBC has been available for 

use thus far in 32 auctions (covering as many as 18,791 licenses), but only 16 license 

applications (involving a total of only 51 geographic area licenses) have been fully 

compliant with the Commission’s TLBC certification requirements. 

The TLBC program needs evaluation of its application process and oversight/enforcement provisions that provide for the reallocation of spectrum allocated to entities who fail to serve their designated tribal lands with first priority to obtain these 

licenses given to tribes at reserve or discounted prices.

Transition Concerns

As the nation begins its transition from public switched telephone network 

(PSTN) to new technologies, Congress and the FCC need to be able to assure tribes 

they will have timely increased ability to own, access, develop and enhance digital 

services and new technologies within their respective communities. Due to the lag 

in the actual build out of broadband services and the establishment of related business and service operations, Congress should mandate the continuation of vital analog services such as Lifeline, Link-Up, and the High Cost programs during the transition. 

39

Conclusion 

This supplemental testimony has highlighted the unique challenges tribes and 

their members have faced for generations. NCAI’s member tribes and their citizens 

face significant economic challenges—particularly in the midst of the budget reduction climate. However, as we move forward in addressing these challenges, it is critical to realize that tribal communities offer unique innovations that can make significant contributions to the policy debate regarding the economic crisis and the 

prospects for a fair and equitable recovery for all Americans. Indian tribes recognize 

the challenges of developing their local economies and providing jobs without the 

access to funding and basic business tools, like broadband access, that are available 

to much of the United States outside of tribal lands. NCAI looks forward to 

partnering with the Committee, as critical members of the federal policymaking 

community, to ensure tribes are included in developing and paving a way for economic development and job creation in Indian country. 

The Program Flexibility Matrix and the Program Flexibility to Create Jobs and 

Grow Tribal Economies discussion document have been retained in Committee files 

and can be found at:

http://www.ncai.org/resources/policylpapers/2011-tribal-nations-conferencetribal-leader-briefing-book

tinyurl.com/TNC2011.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, the Honorable President 

Jefferson Keel, for your testimony. 

President Keel, in your testimony, you mention the importance 

of self-governance programs in promoting economic development 

and spending Federal dollars efficiently. Are there ways we can expand this program to increase its impact? 

Mr. KEEL. Yes, Senator, thank you for that question. Tribes have 

proven, many Tribes that have entered into self-governance compacts with the Federal Government have proven over and over that 

they are more adequately prepared to provide and manage programs at high levels, improve and raise the quality of services with 

less money. Primarily because they don’t get full funding for the 

administrative costs that are associated with those contracts. Yes, 

and the answer to your question is yes, that could be expanded 

across the board. 

There are agencies within the Federal Government that Tribes 

could operate more efficiently, closer to home, with probably less 

resources and less funding that is available, and they have proven 

that over and over again. There are some efforts to include that 

and expand the Title V Self-Determination and Self-Governance in 

the Health and Human Services to all agencies within HHS. And 

there are some others within the Department of Interior that could 

also benefit. 

We look at other areas that could be expanded, and we look forward to working with you in helping to develop that process. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, President Keel. 

Workforce development is tremendously important as Tribes 

build and grow their local economies. How can the Federal Government better support workforce development so that it meets the 

needs of the Tribal communities? 

Mr. KEEL. Thank you again. If you look at Indian Country, there 

are many reservations and areas that have had high unemployment rates for years. The problem with many of our local areas is 

that many of our young people don’t even know how to work. So 

we need to teach them job skills. There are vocational and technical institutions around the Country in different States and difVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:52 Nov 26, 2012 Jkt 075282 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\75282.TXT JACK
40

ferent areas that are more than adequate in terms of teaching 

those job skills, whether it be in developing a trade or higher education. 

The problem is access to funding for some of those. And again, 

it comes back to transportation. We have to transport these students and get them from one area to another to be able to engage 

in some of these activities. Including the Tribal technical colleges 

and some of those institutions in that process would greatly enhance those opportunities. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Let me call on Senator Udall for his questions. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Chairman Akaka, and thank you, 

President Keel, for your testimony. 

I notice one of the areas you focus on is how we could expand 

domestic energy production working with the Tribes. And I am 

wondering, since we passed the Energy Bill in 2005, in those energy provisions that were in there, there was a Tribal title. Where 

do you see the biggest need for improvement? What has worked 

there, what hasn’t? 

Mr. KEEL. I may not be qualified to answer that fully, and I may 

have to get back to you. But it seems to me that when you talk 

about domestic energy production, there are Tribes that have tremendous resources available to them located within their Tribal 

areas. Many times the difficult part is accessing those resources. 

And I know that several years ago, there were some administrative 

requirements that were eliminated in order to allow some Tribes 

to develop resources on their own lands. 

Another instance is, there are Tribes within the Northwest and 

the Great Plains that have significant coal resources. It is a matter 

of helping them to access those resources and get them to market 

in order to really see a return on investment. 

Senator UDALL. President Keel, the Vice Chairman here, Senator 

Barrasso, has introduced an energy bill. I know this may not be 

your area of expertise, but I think it is S. 1684, what improvements 

would you suggest? Does the bill go far enough to really make a 

difference in energy for Indian Country? And how does that compare with, there was a bill in the last session of Congress, I think, 

that Chairman Dorgan had. And I am wondering what your 

thoughts are there. 

Mr. KEEL. Senator, could I ask that, I have the Executive Director of NCAI who has worked with that——

Senator UDALL. She is a very capable woman. 

Mr. KEEL. Could I ask her to help answer that question? 

Senator UDALL. Yes. Give her name for the record. I know Jackie. 

Mr. KEEL. Jacqueline Johnson-Pata, who is Executive Director of 

the National Congress of American Indians. 

Ms. JOHNSON-PATA. Thank you for the question about energy. 

Obviously it is a high priority for NCAI and for Tribes across the 

Country. And when speaking to the first question and to this question, actually I think they are both related. The Energy Act of the 

past helped us to address things like we wanted the TARA [phonetically], for example, to help streamline process. But TARA 

hasn’t worked, there have been some things that we still need to 

41

do. We still need to deal with the leasing issues, we are hoping that 

some of the new regulations that DOI just announced and the 

streamlining might be able to help us in addressing those. But we 

want Congress, like you, to be able to monitor that, to be able to 

ensure that happens. 

Another area that is really important for us is building technical 

capacity. I think that goes with part of the workplace development 

component. But if Indian Country is going to get into the energy 

industry, we have to develop a workforce and the knowledge and 

the skills around that. And we have been working with AFN of 

Canada in addition to the Tribes here, so that we can do some 

cross-border training. I think that is an important component. 

I have to say that there are great pieces in the Barrasso bill. 

Some of the places which we know are more difficult and they are 

not necessarily the jurisdiction of this Committee, but the jurisdiction of Finance, is taking a look at some of those tax incentives 

that could be useful for energy development. We have talked about 

things like transferable tax credits, so that the energy partners of 

Indian Country, we could get greater incentives for those partners 

to want to work with us to be able to develop those energy resources. And those are important pieces. 

Another pieces that is a gap, not in the bill, not addressed directly in the bill, and I recognize it has a strong, we need strong 

support with the Administration, is access to the grid. So we develop energy, what do we do next? If we develop energy, what we 

need to be able to do is stockpile, storage, have storage units for 

that energy and then transfer them to the grid or be part of the 

grid. And there are panels and commissions on the grid that Indian 

Country doesn’t have representation on. So with your urging, we 

could ask the Administration to make sure Indian Country has fair 

representation in those dialogues around grid build-out and development. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much. The Committee is very 

aware that Secretary Salazar is moving through these DOI leasing 

issues and things like that. But we need to know, when they come 

out, your response to them. And President Keel, I am sure you are 

going to stay on top of that. But as things develop, we want to 

know whether they are working, whether they are not, so we can 

work with our Chairman to make sure there is a legislative side 

to this that will make it work better. 

Thank you very much. You can see from her excellent testimony 

why you hired such a capable person. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me say thank you very much, Jackie Johnson-Pata, the Executive Director of NCAI. Good to have you with 

us. 

Let me call on Senator Franken. 

Senator FRANKEN. Yes. Don’t leave. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator FRANKEN. Mr. Keel, I mean no disrespect but——

Mr. KEEL. I get it. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator FRANKEN. Ms. Johnson-Pata, you may have noticed that 

in the first panel, I talked a little bit about biomass. That is something we have in abundance in Minnesota. I really would love to 

42

work with you and have my office work with you on helping our 

Tribes and our bands develop their biomass, so that we can be 

using it as a renewable energy source. 

Ms. JOHNSON-PATA. Thank you. You may not know, but I come 

from the great State of Alaska, and from the southeast, where biomass is also an important opportunity for us. And we have found 

that even with the energy subsidies and development for, or maybe 

energy grants that we get for testing and developing some of those 

prototype fuels and other kinds of things that there is still this gap. 

What we really need to be able to do is to strengthen the ability 

of Indian Country to evaluate those acceptable practices and industry components, so that we can make good, strong decisions about 

long-term feasibility. I think that is one of those, which again I say 

is capacity-building. We have to know what we are getting into. We 

don’t want to create an environment where we get part way there 

but we can’t get those biofuels to market in a way that is feasible 

for a longer term usage. 

Senator FRANKEN. Well, the biofuels or biomass energy industry 

has lots of promise. But in many ways, it is not there yet. 

Ms. JOHNSON-PATA. Right. 

Senator FRANKEN. But when it does get there, we want you to 

be part of it. Because that is something you have, there may be 

lack of infrastructure, there is no lack of biomass, certainly, in 

Minnesota. And then there is, in many cases, there is wind as well. 

I will go to Mr. Keel, but you can feel free to answer this, because we talk about individual development projects, we talk about 

broadband and that is incredibly important, and all these individual areas are very important to economic development. But I 

want to, in a holistic way, when you think about, you think of Indian Country and some of the barriers that are there, and there 

are barriers in workforce training, job training, certainly in education, certainly in health care, certainly in the devastating problems of domestic violence and drug abuse and alcohol abuse and 

law enforcement. 

Can you give me, when we are talking about economic development, can you tell me, has there been something that is, in a more 

holistic way, that has worked? Has there been a holistic approach 

to all of these problems, or has every success story been a unique 

story? In other words, I am trying to find a way in, when you look 

at these legacy problems that exist, have there been successful 

models that we can look to as a way of approaching this kind of 

systemic problem in Indian Country? 

Mr. KEEL. Let me start first, and I will ask Jackie to fill in. The 

Indian Self-Determination Act in 1975 provided Tribes the opportunity to enter into many types of activity, to start contracting with 

the Federal Government and start taking programs and doing 

things. It also allowed Tribes to move forward in terms of developing their gaming industry. The result of that was the Indian 

Gaming Regulatory Act. And the Tribes, there are some Tribes 

around the Country that have been extremely successful in those 

types of initiatives. They have taken those monies, the revenue 

stream, that has provided then an opportunity to diversify their 

economies. Now they are providing, they are entering into other 

types of businesses with that funding stream. 

43

So now we see Tribes that are involved in banking, they are involved in a number of other types of activities instead of just gaming. So whether you are a proponent of gaming or not, it has provided the impetus for Tribes to diversify and grow. 

There are other things in terms of education. What I see in the 

outgrowth of that is some of our younger people are now becoming 

professionals, they are CPAs, they are lawyers, they are doctors, 

they are other types of professionals who are coming back. And 

they will be coming back and bringing that knowledge and that expertise back to Indian Country. They are actually showing us and 

teaching us and helping us to develop that infrastructure that we 

desperately need. 

But the real problem is the infrastructure needs in Indian Country. So as far as a holistic approach, obviously, more funding, obviously, allowing Tribes to develop their own resources is a way to 

help with that. 

Ms. JOHNSON-PATA. I just want to add on, I think President Keel 

is absolutely right. The Self-Determination Act set the framework 

for doing something that changed Indian Country substantially. 

And that began, the very beginning, I think, of building business 

acumen. 

There are a couple of other pieces to that. I think with building 

that business acumen, it really is about when Tribes are at the 

table making decisions, I will use a good example, housing development, NAHASDA. When Tribes were at the table to develop programs and systems that would work with their own community, 

they also were looking at the financial revenue returns of those. So 

building a business acumen that is going to help them for the future. 

Another good example, Southern Ute is going to be testifying 

here in just a few minutes, being able to get people that are out 

in the industry learn the industries and bring them back at home. 

That is being able to invest not only in the post-educational component of that, but reaching out to industries that we need to learn 

from and see if we can’t create fellowships, internships, those kinds 

of programs, so that we can learn with each other. 

A good example of that is really the mentorship program under 

8(a) government contracting. Because that is another way of building business acumen. Every time we can do that we strengthen Indian Country’s ability to be more economically sovereign. 

Senator FRANKEN. So building on success is certainly part of that 

story. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you both. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Franken. 

Let me complete your name as Jackie Johnson-Pata. It is good 

to have you with us, Jackie. And I want to thank the Honorable 

Jefferson Keel for being here and for your remarks as well as your 

answers to our questions. And it certainly will be helpful to the 

Committee. So thank you so much for being here. 

Mr. KEEL. Thank you, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Now I would like to invite the third panel, the 

Honorable Ben Shelly, President of the Navajo Nation; and the 

Honorable Cedric Cromwell, Chairman of the Mashpee 

44

Wampanoag Tribes; and the Honorable Pearl Casias, Chairman of 

the Southern Ute Indian Tribe. Welcome, all of you, to the Committee. 

President Shelly, please proceed with your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BEN SHELLY, PRESIDENT, NAVAJO 

NATION 

Mr. SHELLY. Good afternoon, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ya’at’eeh, good afternoon. I am Ben Shelly, President of the Navajo 

Nation. 

My testimony will cover three topics. The first, I would like to 

emphasize major efforts between the Federal Government and the 

Navajo Nation to create jobs through the broadband development. 

Second, I will touch on the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulatory impact on job creation. And third, I will discuss further economic development efforts specifically to tourism. 

The Navajo Nation is committed to providing quality broadband 

service to the Navajo people through the Navajo Nation’s Middle/

Last Mile Project. One of the keys to our initial development was 

that we got a $32.2 million project grant funded under the ARRA, 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to the Navajo Nation, to 

the Navajo Tribal Utility, NTUA. NTUA is an enterprise of the 

Navajo Nation. 

This project highlights successful collaboration between the Navajo Nation and the Federal agencies to administer and manage 

large projects. The Navajo Nation has completed an environmental 

assessment for the entire project. The initial one included a superhighway. We will be laying down 550 miles of fiber optics, which 

half of it might have been laid already, and it will be erecting 32 

new microwave towers and a data center. This is happening, this 

is not just a story, it is happening. 

Hundreds of jobs are being created in construction and maintenance of the network. The broadband network will provide 4G 

connectivity and high speed internet service, similar to the 

broadband application in urban areas. The project is a first step to 

cover the entire Navajo Nation. Further, the projects will bring 

telemedicine, public safety, education to a majority of the entire 

reservation. 

Our project is making a large dent in the digital divide on the 

Navajo Nation. But further efforts are needed. NTUA is further addressing the connectivity issue on the Navajo Nation and has also 

formed an NTUA Wireless. NTUA Wireless has petitioned the Federal Communication Commission as an eligible telecommunication 

carrier. While the success of the block grant projects are to be celebrated, the Navajo Nation will still face significant challenges to 

job creation and economic development by Federal regulation. For 

example, a recent action of the United State Environmental Protection Agency to impose costly and unnecessary regulation on power 

plants on the Navajo Nation will effectively kill Tribal energy development and rob the Navajo Nation of much-needed jobs and revenue. 

The Navajo Nation will continue to work with the State and the 

Federal Government to adopt reasonable and achievable standards 

that respect the Navajo Nation’s local economy. 

45

Another regulatory concern involves an FAA flyover exemption. 

The Navajo Nation seeks to exempt air tour operators flying to or 

off the reservation from having to use allocations required for commercial air tour at the Grand Canyon. A similar exemption was extended to the Hualapai Tribe. The Navajo Nation is committed to 

working with the Federal Aviation Administration and the National Park Service to create such an exemption which will support 

economic development on Navajo Nation land. 

In conclusion, Congress, through the ARRA funding, has helped 

us develop broadband efforts that will bring positive economic 

change and future business Development on the Navajo Nation. We 

have given you a picture of what works and does not work on the 

Navajo Nation. Congress should continue to close monitor EPA and 

FAA regulations and the impact on economic development in Indian Country. 

Ahe’hee, thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shelly follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BEN SHELLY, PRESIDENT, NAVAJO NATION

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, 

Ya’at’eeh. Good afternoon. I am Ben Shelly, President of the Navajo Nation. There 

are several efforts taking place on the Navajo Nation regarding job creation. Since 

there are multiple topics for discussion, I will first provide testimony with an emphasis on our mutual efforts between the Federal Government and the Navajo Nation to create jobs through our Broadband development. Additionally, I will touch 

on the Environmental Protection Agency regulatory impacts on job creation and further tourism efforts over the Grand Canyon. 

ARRA Support 

The Navajo Nation has a long range, sustainable Broadband plan for all regions 

of the Navajo Nation. The official project name is the Navajo Nation Middle/Last 

Mile Project: Quality Broadband for the Navajo Nation. One of the keys to our initial development of the project was funding provided under the American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) through a $32.2 million grant to the Navajo Tribal 

Utility Authority (NTUA). NTUA is an enterprise of the Navajo Nation. NTUA also 

provided a $14 million co-match on the ARRA grant. 

The Nation understood that the ARRA grant required a sophisticated internal financial management system and strong experience with environmental compliance 

review before construction could begin, especially given the context of tribal lands. 

That is why the Navajo Nation chose NTUA to spearhead the project, with its decades’ long experience in building utility infrastructure and providing critical utility 

services to the Navajo People. NTUA’s performance under the ARRA grant has demonstrated to various federal agencies, and Congress, that the Navajo Nation has the 

capacity to administer and manage a massive broadband project. 

Project Progress 

The territory of the Navajo Nation lies across the three states of Arizona, New 

Mexico and Utah. Although we are a sovereign Nation, as a project on Navajo trust 

land, and where the build out was initiated with federal funds, rights-of-way, and 

even tower permits, require federal approval and compliance with NEPA. The 

project therefore required Environmental Assessments (EAs) for the entire project, 

a project covering over half of the Nation’s entire 27,000 square mile territory (approximately the size of West Virginia). The initial line includes a 550-mile Fiber 

optic route, with 20 miles of lateral lines; 32 new microwave towers; multiple sites 

housing technical equipment; and an NTUA Data Center built to house electronic 

equipment and software. 

NTUA has worked hard to meet all of the U.S. Department of Commerce’s requirements and has also worked successfully with the Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, to complete the EAs. Recently, the Department of Interior 

issued a finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for this project. NTUA is now 

constructing the project and has made significant progress on the overall construction of the project, including the installation of 14 new microwave towers, construction of the Data Center, and installation of over 150 miles of fiber. 

46

The project will build upon NTUA’s existing microwave network and provide 

broadband access to 15,120 square miles within the Navajo Nation. Hundreds of 

jobs are being created in construction and maintenance of the network. The 

broadband network will provide 4G connectivity and high-speed Internet services, 

similar to broadband applications in urban America. The project is a first step to 

cover the entire Navajo Nation, but will initially support fixed and mobile services 

to 30,000 households and many businesses in 15 of the largest communities on the 

Navajo Nation. Additionally, the project will provide an additional capacity to connect 49 tribal communities. 

Health, Public Safety and Education Benefits of Broadband 

The project is critical to the Navajo Nation’s anchor institutions, and will bring 

telemedicine services to physicians and health care personnel at schools, hospitals 

and tribal agencies throughout the entire Navajo Nation. Public Safety will benefit 

through the additional 911 notification network. Educators will reach digitally to 

areas not feasible in the recent past. Our project will make a large dent into the 

digital divide on the Navajo Nation, but further efforts are needed. 

Eligible Telecommunications Carrier 

NTUA has recently formed a last mile telecommunications carrier, NTUA Wireless, with a minority partner, Commnet Wireless. NTUA Wireless has petitioned the 

Federal Communication Commission (FCC) for Eligible Telecommunications Carrier 

(ETC) status for the entire territory of the Navajo Nation, as a majority owned tribal telecommunications carrier. Through the Navajo Nation Telecommunications Regulatory Commission (NNTRC), the Navajo Nation formally participates in proceedings before the FCC, and is in support of the NTUA Wireless’ petition. Importantly, NTUA Wireless understands that it must fully comply with the regulatory 

authority of the Navajo Nation and the NNTRC. The Nation therefore greatly appreciates and fully supports the FCC’s recent Order to ETCs operating in tribal territory that they will hereafter be required to fully engage with tribes and certify, 

on an annual basis, that they have complied with tribal licensing and other jurisdictional requirements. It has been particularly galling to the Navajo Nation, and to 

its sovereignty, that there are licensees of radio spectrum on the Nation who do not 

meet their responsibilities to the Navajo People. Carriers operating on the Nation 

must engage the sovereign Navajo Tribe in determining appropriate build out on the 

Nation, in order to serve its vital institutions and community needs. Those licensees 

who completely fail to build out infrastructure and to provide services on the Nation 

should be required to turn radio spectrum over to the Nation. 

Future Efforts 

A recent housing needs assessment found that the Navajo Nation has a 52 percent unemployment rate. Accordingly, many households cannot afford access to the 

new broadband efforts. The Navajo Nation supports Lifeline and Linkup programs 

($1 dollar phone for low-income participants) for future ETCs to help bridge the digital divide. The Nation would also like to participate in any pilot efforts by the FCC 

to add broadband services to these programs. 

Tribal Energy Development 

The Navajo Nation is blessed with abundant natural resources and cursed with 

unemployment levels reaching 52 percent. Our natural resources can help to alleviate unemployment on the Navajo Nation while we preserve our air, water and land. 

Unfortunately, the recent actions of the US Environmental Protection Agency to impose costly and unnecessary regulation on power plants would effectively kill tribal 

energy development, and deprive the Navajo Nation of economic stability and much 

needed jobs and revenue. 

The Clean Air Act was designed to improve air quality while promoting a strong 

American economy. That balance was essential to the bill’s passage 40 years ago. 

Today that balance is at risk in New Mexico and Arizona. The Clean Air Act’s Regional Haze Rule set a long-term, achievable timetable for improving visibility in 

national parks and wilderness areas, including those in and near New Mexico, Arizona and the Navajo Nation. Under the Regional Haze Rule, States are tasked with 

developing implementation plans to limit emissions from major contributors to regional haze. Importantly, states are allowed to consider many factors in determining 

what is the best available retrofit technology (BART) for existing coal plants, including non-air impacts and the costs of compliance on critical local and regional industries. 

In accordance with the Rule’s requirements, New Mexico considered these factors, 

and approved and submitted to US EPA a thoughtful, comprehensive plan that addressed a variety of contributors to haze while minimizing the negative impact to 

47

our already vulnerable economy. However, instead of approving the state plan, EPA 

ignored it and put forward its own plan, one that calls for technology that is significantly more expensive than is required by law. 

EPA’s first implementation plan in New Mexico is for the San Juan Generating 

Station west of Farmington, and would impose the most expensive technology available, selective catalytic reduction or SCRs. This is not necessary technology for 

phase one of the Regional Haze Rule, which only requires reasonable progress to 

the goal of pristine conditions by 2065. . Moreover, in finalizing its own plan, EPA 

mistakenly asserted that its more expensive approach would not adversely affect the 

Navajo Nation—a finding that ignores reality. While San Juan is not located on 

Navajo land, that does not mean there will not be negative impacts to our economy 

and people. On the contrary, hundreds of our people are employed at the plant and 

the mine next door that produces its fuel. The wages they earn help to feed, house 

and clothe an even greater number of Navajo people. 

Concerned about the EPA’s rule impact on Navajo workers, contractors and subcontractors as well as the entire region, we have held government-to-government 

consultation with EPA to urge them to reconsider their plan and instead adopt the 

state plan. That plan would improve visibility through new controls on San Juan 

Generating Station, and it would meet federal standards for a fraction of the cost 

of EPA’s plan. Unfortunately, these meetings have not yet convinced EPA to reconsider its decision. 

The Navajo Nation is now facing similar edict from the EPA concerning BART 

for both the Four Corners Power Plant, on the Navajo Nation in New Mexico, and 

the Navajo Generating Station, located on the Navajo Nation in Arizona. US EPA 

again intends to impose harsh new standards on both plants, which together, utilizing Navajo coal, provide most of the revenue of the Navajo Nation’s general funds, 

and further jeopardize economic development and sustainability on the Navajo Nation. 

The Navajo people care deeply about our natural world; and the Navajo Nation 

has worked through our Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency to preserve the air, the water, and the land around us. We also understand the need to 

balance environmental considerations with the economic impact on our people and 

our neighbors. 

Where the Navajo Nation has a substantial interest in an off reservation project, 

the Tribe and the State should work together under the Clean Air Act and the Regional Haze Rule to set standards that are achievable and reasonable. On the Navajo Nation, until the Tribe has established its own tribal implementation plan for 

its coal plants, US EPA should be working with the Navajo Nation in a governmentto-government relationship, and considering its trust responsibility, in setting standards that are reasonable and achievable, and not threatening to destroy the Nation’s 

already extremely fragile local economy, or to empty its government coffers. 

FAA Flyover Exemption 

A recent resolution was passed by the Navajo Nation Tribal Council seeking to 

exempt air tour operators flying to or from the reservation from having to use allocations required for commercial air tours at the Grand Canyon. A similar exemption 

was extended to the Hualapai Tribe. The Navajo Nation is committed to working 

with the Federal Aviation Administration and the National Parks Service to create 

such an exemption, which would support economic development on Navajo land. 

The Navajo Nation faces difficulties trying to attract businesses and extreme economic hardships. It is because of these problems that the Navajo Tribal Council is 

taking a proactive stance to serve the interests of the Navajo people, looking to draw 

in more business and opportunity as a means to assist in the future total self-sufficiency of the Navajo Nation. 

Conclusion 

Congress’ federal support, through ARRA funding, has been a catalyst to develop 

broadband efforts that will bring positive economic change through future business 

development on the Navajo Nation. In addition, Congress’ support for tribally owned 

or controlled carriers achieving ETC status and gaining additional incentives and 

access to licensed spectrum on tribal lands is of critical importance to tribal sovereignty and self-determination, as well as meeting the mandates of the Universal 

Service Fund for the equivalent of urban communications services reaching all rural 

Americans as well. Current FCC regulatory reform that requires meaningful engagement by telecommunications carriers with Tribes will ultimately provide better 

services to the Navajo people and facilitate economic development. Tribes have the 

potential to greatly benefit from the recent actions of the FCC, and we hope that 

48

Congress will be fully supportive of the FCC’s efforts to revamp the Universal Service Fund to meet all of our contemporary communication needs. 

We have given you a picture of what is working and what is not working on the 

Navajo Nation. Congress should continue to support NTUA efforts regarding 

broadband development. Congress should continue to closely monitor EPA and FAA 

regulatory authority to foster greater economic development. 

We appreciate the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs for holding this worthwhile hearing on this important topic. 

Ahe’hee, thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, President Shelly, for your 

statement. 

And now I would like to call on the Honorable Cedric Cromwell, 

Chairman, for your remarks. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CEDRIC CROMWELL, CHAIRMAN, 

MASHPEE WAMPANOAG TRIBE 

Mr. CROMWELL. Aloha, Chairman and Committee. Thank you for 

all the good work you do for Indian Country. For that I thank you. 

We really appreciate it, and you are loved by Indian Country, so 

thank you. 

As Chairman of the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe, I am honored 

to speak with you today about job creation and what can be done 

at a Federal level to allow us to create jobs for not only our Tribal 

members, but also our citizens of the State of Massachusetts. 

The single most effective measure that this Congress can take to 

spur job creation and economic development is to end the uncertainty caused by the controversial Carcieri decision. That uncertainty impedes trust land acquisition, denies access to funds and 

funding opportunities and creates a continuing threat of litigation 

that casts a cloud over all of our economic development plans. 

As you know, despite our Tribe’s long history, including being the 

Nation that met the Pilgrims back in 1620, we were only reaffirmed as a federally-recognized Tribe in 2007. As a recently reaffirmed Tribe, we have much work to do. We have to recover from 

centuries of neglect in which we lost control of our homes, our 

homelands, our natural resources, and the ability to protect our 

way of life. Despite all those losses, my community is strong and 

working to overcome the difficulties that the Carcieri decision poses 

to our efforts to restore a piece of our homeland and fulfill our obligation to provide for the Mashpee Wampanoag people. 

After centuries of neglect, my people’s needs are crushing. Over 

50 percent of our adults are out of work. Less than half our adults 

have high school diplomas. Not coincidentally, half of our population lives below the poverty line. Our elders and families struggle 

to find affordable housing in one of the most expensive housing 

markets in the Country, Cape Code, on lands that were allotted 

away from us in the 19th century. And our people suffer from poverty-related health issues like heart disease, diabetes, cancer, 

abuse and depression. 

The Tribe’s needs, although starker, are not much different from 

the rest of the Country. My people need housing, and we are working to build our first Tribal housing development, aided by 

NAHASDA funding. And certainly, no access to the other funding, 

based on the fact that our lands are fee-based lands and not trust 

lands. 

49

But the delay in restoring our trust land base means that we are 

burdened by State as well as Federal regulation, and progress is 

slower and more expensive. Job creation and home construction is 

stalled, meaning that those jobs just aren’t going to happen. 

We are about to celebrate the opening of the Tribe’s health clinic, 

funded by Indian Health Services, and operating near our Tribal 

headquarters, in our traditional homeland, but still not on our 

trust land. We wish that we could build bigger and better and create more economy through this effort, and more jobs, but we are 

providing the much-needed services to our people on fee-based 

lands. 

We have a high value on teaching our children and working to 

improve the quality of education for young people who are now surrounded by a much larger non-Tribal community that has come to 

occupy our Mashpee homeland. To our great pride, our children 

and adults are learning in Wampanoag again. We are not waiting 

to build our dreams, but wish that the few Federal programs that 

we can now access could be supplemented by the others that are 

outside our grasp, because we have no trust lands. We wish that 

the minimal funds that we receive as a recently reaffirmed Tribe 

were more closely tracked by the centuries of unmet needs we must 

remedy. The Federal programs now in place that benefit Indians 

are a fragile lifeline, not enough, but certainly not a fair target for 

budget cuts. 

We want to do more with our homeland, but we cannot yet build 

on trust land, because we don’t have it yet. So we must confront 

State assertions of jurisdiction and taxation. It would be great if we 

had economic development zones. So our costs go up, jobs and programs are delayed and deferred. 

We want to do more than just catch up, we want to restore the 

power house of Indian Country to Tribal free trade zones and Section 17 corporations. That way Tribal trust land can support good 

jobs with competitive wages in manufacturing, distribution, goods 

and services, a true GDP. 

Indian Country can develop a high performing gross domestic 

product as gateway to stabilizing the American economy. Nearly 

500 years ago, roughly 490 years ago, my people controlled it. They 

controlled all their natural resources. If you think about it in today’s terms, a high performing economy. None of our Tribal people 

left behind, so in the words of today’s language, we were very rich. 

We can be rich again, but with a hands-up, not a handout. By allowing these trust lands to create an economy in which we can 

build these economic structures through free trade zones in which 

we can provide employment with competitive wages and build all 

these good services and products. 

America probably does 4 percent of economic development today. 

In the 1950s, it was 80 percent. In Indian Country, we are the answer to the economic boon of America. So we can compete with corporate America, they get their tax breaks, they go offshore, they 

give jobs away and will promise renewable new energy jobs. And 

it just hasn’t happened in America. So I guarantee that with trust 

lands, Indian Country is the answer. It is the investment answer 

to provide those jobs in the uplift of our Indian nations. It also conVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:52 Nov 26, 2012 Jkt 075282 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\75282.TXT JACK
50

tributes to a high performing GDP and will again provide natural 

resources and an economy that will lift this Country back. 

I thank you for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cromwell follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. CEDRIC CROMWELL, CHAIRMAN, MASHPEE

WAMPANOAG TRIBE

Good afternoon Chairman Akaka and members of the Committee, and thank you 

for your efforts on behalf of so many issues affecting Indian Country. As Chairman 

of the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe, I am honored to speak with you about job creation, and what can be done at the federal level to allow us to create jobs not only 

for tribal members, but also our neighbors in Massachusetts. 

The single most effective measure that this Congress can take to spur job creation 

and economic development is to end the uncertainty caused by the controversial 

Carcieri decision. That uncertainty impedes trust land acquisition, denies access to 

funds and funding opportunities, and creates a continuing threat of litigation that 

casts a cloud over all of our economic development planning. 

As you know, despite our Tribe’s long history, including being the Nation that met 

the Pilgrims back in 1620, we were only reaffirmed as a federally recognized Tribe 

in 2007. As a recently reaffirmed tribe, we have much work to do. We have to recover from the centuries in which we lost control of our homes, our lands, our natural resources and the ability to protect our way of life. Despite all those losses, my 

community is strong, and working to overcome the difficulties that the Carcieri decision poses to our efforts to restore a piece of our homeland and fulfill our obligation 

to provide for the Mashpee people. 

After centuries of neglect, my people’s needs are crushing. Over 50 percent of our 

adults are out of work. Less than half have a high school diploma. Not coincidentally, half of our population lives below the poverty line. Our elders and families 

struggle to find affordable housing in one of the most expensive housing markets 

in the country—on lands that were allotted away from us in the nineteenth century. 

And our people suffer from poverty-related health issues like heart disease, diabetes, substance abuse, and depression. 

The Tribe’s needs, although starker, are not much different from the rest of the 

country. My people need housing, and we are working to build our first tribal housing development, aided by NAHASDA funding. But the delay in restoring our trust 

land base means that we are burdened by state, as well as federal regulation, and 

progress is slower and more expensive. Jobs are slower in coming, as are our homes. 

We want to do more with our homeland. We are planning to build a tribal government and community center, assisted by a low interest loan from USDA—with the 

goal of concentrating our governmental programs in one site, serving our population 

more efficiently, and without paying for outside rental. But we cannot yet build on 

trust land, because we don’t yet have it. So we must confront state assertions of 

jurisdiction, including zoning and taxation. So our costs go up, jobs and programs 

are delayed and deferred. 

We are about to celebrate the opening of the Tribe’s health clinic, funded by IHS, 

and operating near our tribal headquarters, in our traditional homeland, but still 

not on trust land. We wish that we could build bigger and better, but we are providing much needed service to our people. 

With funds from DOI and EPA, we are working to restore the natural resources 

of our home area by introducing conservation efforts, shellfish cultivation, and other 

programs to strengthen and restore our cultural heritage, all in areas of our traditional homeland, but without the protections that could be much more intense were 

we to have clear jurisdiction over a trust land base. 

We have a high value on teaching our children, and are working to improve the 

quality of education for our young people who are now surrounded by a much larger 

non-tribal community that has come to occupy our Mashpee homeland. To our great 

pride, our children—and our adults—are learning in Wampanoag again. 

We are not waiting to build our dreams, but wish that the few federal programs 

that we can now access could be supplemented by the others that are outside our 

grasp because we have no trust land. We wish that the minimal funds we receive 

as a recently reaffirmed tribe more closely tracked the centuries of unmet needs we 

must remedy. The federal programs now in place to benefit Indians are a fragile 

lifeline, not enough, but certainly not a fair target for budget cuts. 

Finally, and beyond just catching up, we would look move beyond the present and 

into the future Indian economy of free trade zones and the many jobs that we could 

create were we to be able to so develop our trust land base. 

51

I urge, again, that this Congress swiftly enact a fix to the Supreme Court’s erroneous ruling in Carcieri. Once that uncertainty is resolved, we will be able to more 

speedily restore a land base, access funding, reconstruct portions of our homeland, 

and create jobs and opportunities for us and for the communities among whom we 

now live. 

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Thank you very much, Chairman 

Cromwell. 

And now I would like to call on the Honorable Pearl Casias, 

Chairman of the Southern Ute Indian Tribe, for your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF HON. PEARL E. CASIAS, CHAIRMAN, TRIBAL 

COUNCIL, SOUTHERN UTE INDIAN TRIBE 

Ms. CASIAS. Good afternoon, Chairman Akaka and Mr. Udall, 

distinguished members of this Committee of Indian Affairs. 

I am Pearl Casias, and I thank you giving me audience this 

afternoon. I have been Tribal Chairman of the Southern Ute Indian 

Tribe located near Ignacio, Colorado. I thank you for your assistance in the past. That is one of the reasons why we come to the 

Hill, to request your assistance once again. 

Today we wish to discuss obstacles that are hindering job creation and economic development in Tribal communities. So it not 

only affects Southern Ute Indian Tribe but also affects other Indian 

Tribes across the Nation. You received my written testimony regarding for some of the changes that we would like to see. We appreciate your leadership in this Administration and we want to 

thank you for Senate Bill 1684. We would like for the Committee 

to consider marking up some of the Sections within that bill. 

Also we would very definitely like to, since you already have my 

written statement, if you are ready to ask questions, I am more 

than happy to proceed with the questions that you may have for 

me. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Casias follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. PEARL E. CASIAS, CHAIRMAN, TRIBAL COUNCIL, 

SOUTHERN UTE INDIAN TRIBE

Introduction 

Good afternoon Chairman Akaka, Vice Chairman Barrasso, and distinguished 

members of the Committee on Indian Affairs. 

I am Pearl Casias and I am the Chairman of the Tribal Council of the Southern 

Ute Indian Tribe, located near Ignacio, Colorado. Thank you for the opportunity to 

appear before you today to discuss legal and regulatory obstacles that are hindering 

job creation and economic development in tribal communities. 

Background on the Southern Ute Indian Tribe 

As the Committee knows, in the late 1980s the Southern Ute Indian Tribe (Tribe) 

embarked on a strategy of taking control of its natural resources for the benefit of 

our tribal members. In the interim, the Tribe has become a major producer of natural gas in the United States, and along the way has earned ‘‘AAA’’ ratings from 

national credit rating agencies. 

With $15 trillion in national debt, $1.2 trillion in annual deficits, and unemployment holding steady at 9 percent, our nation faces the most serious economic and 

political challenges since the 1930s. At the same time, tribal communities have been 

plagued by jobless rates much higher—as high as 80 percent on some reservations—

for generations. 

Clearly, bold action is needed to unlock the economic potential of Indian tribes 

which will provide jobs, income and hope to tribes and their members, as well as 

to surrounding communities who will also benefit enormously from stronger tribal 

economies. 

52

In January 2011, President Obama issued an Executive Order on regulatory reform with the stated aim of revisiting existing and future regulations to make sure 

they pay due regard to their effects on job creation and development. 

With this hearing, this Committee is taking the necessary steps to hear from Indian Country about the many obstacles to job creation and stable economies. 

Themes and Ideas for Committee Consideration 

To create more business-friendly environments in Indian Country, I offer the following items for your review. It is important to note that these are not only applicable to energy-oriented development efforts, and in many cases apply to any development project a tribe might wish to pursue. 

1. Indian Energy Bill 

Before discussing some of the generally applicable reforms and other ideas, I want 

to commend the Vice Chairman and the Chairman for their leadership in developing 

and introducing S.1684, the Indian Tribal Energy Development and Self Determination Act Amendments of 2011. This bill contains very good, pro-development amendments to existing law that the Tribe believes will be helpful in more efficient and 

effective energy development on tribal lands. 

I urge the Committee to schedule a legislative hearing and markup of this important bill before the year is out, with the goal of passing it and sending it to the 

President before the 112th Congress expires. 

2. Leasing Reforms 

For development projects that occur on surface lands as well as subsurface lands, 

the Federal leasing process can be time-consuming, costly and in the end, uneconomic. The Department of the Interior’s recent announcement of a proposed regulation to reform and streamline the trust land surface leasing statutes is a very welcome development and we applaud the Secretary for taking the leadership on this 

issue. 

We also laud Vice Chairman Barrasso for introducing the ‘‘Helping Expedite and 

Advance Responsible Tribal Homeownership Act of 2011’’ (the HEARTH Act, S.703), 

and the Committee for approving the bill and sending it to the full Senate for its 

consideration. If enacted, the HEARTH Act will provide tribes with greater autonomy over surface leasing of their trust lands and will help tribal entrepreneurship 

as well as attract outside investment to tribal economies. We fully support efforts 

reflected in that legislation that would authorize tribes to enter into surface leases 

without secretarial approval. 

3. Appraisals 

Another area in need of this Committee’s attention is the appraisal process. For 

any transaction involving tribal trust land or trust assets, an appraisal is required 

to be performed to ensure that not less than fair market value is being offered as 

part of the transaction. Legislative proposals that would provide time limits on the 

Secretary’s consideration of appraisals and estimates of fair market value have been 

made in recent years. We support those concepts, but believe it important for true 

appraisal reform to offer tribes the option of developing their own tribal methodologies and processes to make value determinations and to manage their own appraisal 

regimes. The substantial delays and inflexible appraisal standards associated with 

the Federal appraisal requirement must be reformed. 

4. NEPA. 

Mr. Chairman, the Southern Ute Indian Tribe is both a prolific energy producer 

and a careful steward of our natural environment. As such, we know the value of 

striking the right balance between development and natural resources protection. 

Because so many of the approvals necessary for a development project on tribal 

lands require the involvement of the Secretary of the Interior or other Federal officials, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) often applies to these decisions. For instance, the act of the Secretary approving a surface lease of tribal trust 

lands triggers NEPA. Needless to say, this requirement often causes unnecessary 

delays and, in some cases, can cause viable economic opportunities to be lost to 

tribes and their members. We believe the Committee should review tribal environmental processes and capacity and investigate ways to make the tribes the primary 

stewards of environmental protection when it comes to their own lands. 

5. Fees for Applications for Permits to Drill 

Beginning with the FY 2007 Interior Appropriations Act, the Congress authorized 

the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to levy and collect a $6,500 fee for every 

Application for Permit to Drill on Federal lands. The Department of the Interior inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:52 Nov 26, 2012 Jkt 075282 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\75282.TXT JACK
53

terpreted ‘‘Federal lands’’ to include Indian lands, and in the intervening years, the 

BLM has collected these fees from operators on Indian lands. 

These fees, taken together with the impediments mentioned above, provide a significant comparative disadvantage to energy development on Indian lands because 

these factors do not come into play on privately-owned or state lands. 

6. Raising the Comfort Level of Investors and Developers 

There are numerous issues the Committee might also wish to investigate that 

would improve the attractiveness of tribal economies to investors. These include:

a. Providing certainty in the creation and perfection of security interests related 

to personal and interests in trust property on tribal lands;

b. Clarifying the power and authority of a a17 Corporation to grant interests 

in tribal trust property to financial investors; and

c. Improving the Land Title Records Office tribes must use for purposes of land 

records or, alternatively, authorizing tribes to use state land recordation offices.

We intend to provide additional detail and rationale for these items for the record. 

In conclusion, I want to again thank the Committee for holding this hearing and 

for its leadership in recognizing that there are many problems that can be addressed without spending money and which, in the end, will have profound effects 

on the health of tribal economies nationwide. 

I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. I do have questions for all 

of you. 

President Shelly, you highlighted a large number of new homes 

and businesses that Navajo plans to connect to broadband. How do 

you expect this new broadband to create jobs in the Navajo Nation 

and its surrounding communities? 

Mr. SHELLY. Thank you for the question, Chairman. It creates 

hundreds of jobs, they are being created in construction, in maintenance of our fiber optic, as I earlier mentioned. And also putting 

up towers, it is going to create a lot more jobs. And to maintain 

it will create more jobs. 

And by building more homes, it also will provide hookup to all 

of those homes, to provide the service connectivity. And then people 

that are in the house, that are living in there, all the wiring that 

has to be done to make the connectivity, it creates other jobs. So 

an electrician, technical people will be around that house and hooking the connectivity and using that broadband. That would be my 

answer. 

As history shows also, connectivity by broadband brings along 

later commercial options too. It really brings a lot of stuff in. 

Connectivity is the answer for us. I would like to see my grandkids, 

my children that stand on top of that world, the world itself, stand 

on top and see the world through all of this internet and technology 

that we have. I want my Navajo kids and my people to have that 

power like every one of you have. That is what I want for them. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you so much for your response. 

Chairman Cromwell, what are some of the economic opportunities that your Tribe will be able to pursue in the future if you are 

able to rebuild your homeland? 

Mr. CROMWELL. Thank you, Chairman Akaka. I want to point 

out something that has just happened in Massachusetts that I have 

been working very diligently on the last two and a half years. The 

State of Massachusetts passed an expanded gaming bill with Section 91 with Native American priorities. So it is the first State that 

54

has ever written Federal law which supports trust lands which 

supports my Tribe from a federally-recognized perspective. They 

are very supportive, the Governor wants to do this with our Tribe. 

We have strong relationships. That trust lands is a component of 

that. They believe that we will get a compact together, which is 

very meaningful for my Tribe and provides protection for both the 

Tribe and Commonwealth. 

But the next step is that we need that trust land to fulfill that 

economic opportunity. So the foundation of that is, number one, 

who we are as a distinct, unique political entity within the United 

States Constitution, all us Indian people, 565 Tribes. And the State 

recognizes that and wants to work with us. So we need those trust 

lands, it is very important to us. 

As you know, Cape Winds was a big impact on the Wampanoag 

Nation, the Mashpees and the Aquinnas. And so pre-Section 106 

consultation, it should have been a proactive planning with the 

Ocean Management Board to include the Mashpees and the 

Aquinnas in that planning process, because where they staked out 

the renewable wind energy was on sacred, historical, religious cultural properties land, which was proven by the Massachusetts Historical Society and also the Federal level, the Park Services. But 

they still moved forward with that. When you look at that, that 

was above water, we think of it as building windows on somebody’s 

cemetery. 

So we look at those opportunities, but we want to be part of the 

planning process, we want to be part of that solution. Because we 

do believe in those renewable energies, and we understand how to 

work this ocean management plan. We have expertise and we want 

to do it, but we are not included. So we look at those renewable 

energy opportunities, not only with that, we also look at land renewable energy projects on our land. But we need trust lands to 

access those funding opportunities to be able to move forward. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you for your response. 

We will have a second round on questions. Let me call on Senator Udall for his questions at this time. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

President Shelly, let me just say again how proud I am of the 

work you are doing on the Navajo Nation. You have only been 

President for a short time, but I think you have brought excellent 

leadership to the Navajo Nation. It is good to see that the first 

lady, Martha Shelly, is accompanying you. She is back there in the 

audience, and we are happy to have her here. 

President Shelly, in your testimony you talk a lot about the 

projects that have come out of collaboration with the FCC and then 

also the American Recovery Act, ARRA. Could you share a little bit 

more on the human impact of these programs with the Committee, 

like what do these new lines and towers mean for the Navajo people? What is the sentiment of the Navajo Nation about broadband 

development? What kind of local support and interest is there for 

these projects? And have these created jobs out there on the Navajo 

Nation? 

Mr. SHELLY. Thank you for the question, Senator. Our model of 

what broadband is, commercial, education, government, public safety, medicine, and as we all know, the Navajo Nation is the size of 

55

West Virginia. We don’t live elbow to elbow up there. We have a 

large, remote area. A lot of connectivity needs to happen in medicine, public safety and other areas, just communicate. It is hard 

right now, we don’t have that. 

I would like to also say that the answer to whatever else, for the 

other thing that I wanted to say, I kind of lost that, the rabbit goes 

in the hole, as they say. But we like to say that there is a lot of 

interconnectivity. Without that, we really, at this point, to be honest with you, the Navajo Nation is lost, because there is no 

connectivity. 

And when you go into your remote area, your health is at risk, 

your life is at risk. But with all of this, and the more we open this 

up in our connectivity, it also creates jobs, like marketing, your 

commercial and marketing. Business can now be capable of going 

online to do commercial. You have increased bandwidth to establish a new business. Merchants can conduct online sales more easier, Navajo-owned business. So on and on, it adds on to more stuff, 

because you can do a lot of stuff online. We can get medical help 

and emergency assistance, health care, where elders can call in online, emergencies help online. Because all of our emergency services are a distance away. Somebody’s choking, they can be done online to save a life. Everything can be done online. 

So if we have connectivity, we are a lot safer, we get things done 

quicker to help each other out. 

Senator UDALL. President Shelly, your model has been working 

collaboratively on the Navajo Nation on this project. I think you 

call it in our testimony, Navajo Nation Middle/Last Mile Project, 

Quality Broadband for the Navajo Nation. And it is a very ambitious project, and it is an admirable project. The thing that is very 

apparent by it, as you just said, it connects all the Navajo people 

together even though there are such broad areas that are covered, 

on a very rural reservation. 

The other thing it does, as you well know, is telemedicine. You 

have the clinics, you have the Indian hospitals. But to be able to 

get the best experts to be able to consult on patients, that takes 

broadband, that takes the internet. And that is going on out there. 

So there are significant things happening. I am wondering, in 

your collaborations and consultations, have you run into any problems in terms of sovereignty? Or have you been able to work well 

with all the partners and get things in place and working for the 

Navajo Nation? 

Mr. SHELLY. Thank you for the question, Senator. We are very 

fortunate with telecommunication director, Brian Tekaban. He is a 

member of the United States SEC Commission. And we asked for 

authority that we are now, we went to the SEC, the discussion was 

made and there was a decision that came out, a lot of wireless carriers didn’t want Navajo to have this authority. We now have the 

authority, if anybody wants to come on the reservation, they have 

to come to the Navajo Nation for permit. The wireless vehicle, any 

service, it comes to the Navajo Nation. We issue permit now, we 

have that authority. 

A lot of people like AT&T and Verizon fought us, but we won 

that. So with that, it also gives us an open door to have our own 

wireless service. So it provides us an opportunity that if we love 

56

the Code Talker like we do, I would like to maybe change our airspace to Whispering Wind, Wind Talker, right along with AT&T, 

Verizon. We also found that we had been cheated a lot. There is 

such a name as spectrum. There is some money being collected 

when these airspace and the wireless services are using, those 

monies are collected and guess where it is going? It is going back 

to the U.S. Treasury. 

But what I would like to do by naming the air space to whatever 

it is, Whispering Wind or Wind Talker, that would set up an account for the Navajo Nation so if they do anything, it will go back 

to the Navajo Nation when we are using that fund. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, President Shelly. And thank you for 

your courtesies, Mr. Chairman, I know I ran over a little bit. I 

don’t think I have a need for a second round. I think this is an excellent panel. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Udall. 

I have a question here for Chairman Casias. The Southern Ute 

Tribe is the largest employer in LaPlata County. What businesses 

are the largest creators in your Tribe, what will create the most 

jobs in the future? 

Ms. CASIAS. Thank you, Chairman Akaka, for the question. 

We established our own energy department in 1980 and in 1992, 

we developed Red Willow Production Company, which we drill natural gas on our reservation. Based on that, we increased the employment for our company by hiring citizens within LaPlata County. We also established a community center in 1971 and in 1993, 

we converted that to a casino, primarily to employ Tribal members 

of the Southern Ute Tribe. It was not an establishment that would 

provide revenues to the Tribe. It was, the foundation for the casino 

was to provide jobs for our people. And it still remains in that category that it provides jobs for our people. 

Then in 1999, we created a financial plan for the Southern Ute 

Indian Tribe. As a result of that, we developed the Growth Fund 

Entity, which is a business arm of the Southern Ute Indian Tribe. 

It is a separate arm of the Tribal government to diversify the revenues that we receive from natural gas drilling and transmission off 

of the Southern Ute Indian Reservation. 

In 2003, we built a new Tribal administration building. And we 

named it after our honorable Chairman, Mr. Leonard C. Burch. 

That building now houses all of our administrative staff. So we 

have three separate entities on the Reservation that employ 1,500 

people from LaPlata County. There may be also some employees 

that live just across the State line in New Mexico. That has been 

the reason why we are the largest employer in LaPlata County. 

We continue to increase our employment simply because with the 

diversification of the Southern Ute Indian Tribal revenues, we have 

gone off-reservation and we have purchased real estate, we have 

purchased other businesses. We employ those individuals off-reservation in order to create a revenue stream for our people. So that 

is the methodology that we have created to make us the largest 

employer. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

I want to thank you for mentioning S. 1684. It is an energy bill 

that I co-sponsored with Vice Chairman Barrasso. I just want you 

57

to know that we intend to have a hearing on energy and particularly on that bill early in the second session of this Congress. So 

we are not done with energy yet. It is a growing concern, and it 

is an answer to economic problems, not only for the Indian Tribes 

but for the rest of the Country. We want to be sure that you have 

the tools that are needed to move in this direction. 

So thank you, and I just wanted you to know that we think it 

is an important area we have to work on. Thank you. 

I want to thank this panel and the other witnesses as well for 

all you have done for the Committee. You have been very informative. You know that our intention today was to know all the activities that are happening out there and what we need to continue 

to do in this particular area. I look forward to working with you 

on that. 

The Tribes are not on an equal playing field. And that is our concern. When it comes to economic development, Federal agencies 

can, however, support them through financing and infrastructure 

development and regulatory reform. I hope that this hearing has 

helped highlight Federal agencies as essential partners along with 

Tribes and private sector in growing and sustaining Tribal economies. We all need to work together in order to strengthen our Nation’s economy and put more Americans back to work. I mention 

it that way because it is not only for the Tribes, and they continue 

to say it also helps the communities in their area as well. 

So again mahalo, thank you to all of you for participating in today’s hearing. I want to remind you that the Committee and its 

record will remain open for two weeks from today, because we certainly want to hear from others who want to comment on this hearing. So thank you very much for being here. The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:05 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(59)

APPENDIX

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. CEDRIC BLACK EAGLE, CHAIRMAN, CROW TRIBE


1201a1.eps
60


1201a2.eps

II. Ct'l)\V EnergyReSl)urces 

Land and Populalion 

11le CrowNafion is n sovereign govemment located in southeastern Mont~n~. The Crow 

Nationhas tnree furllUl.L U'eaties with thefedel:al government, concLuding with the Fort 

Laramie Trooly of May 1, 1868. The Crow Reservation origimdly en.compassed most of 

Wyomin& (including thc Pov.uer River Bru;in) and soulhellstem Monhlllll. Through a seric3 of 

twaties, agreements and unilateral federal laws over a 70 year span, Crowterritorywas 

reduced by 92% to its curooll12.2 millionwne m.ca. 

Tlll\ddition to this subslanlialland loss, the romRining Iribllllnnd bRac within the exterior 

boundary of the Q:owReservation was cruved up by the 1920 Crow Allotment Aet. In 1919, 

prior to the A11otmcntAct, there were rurelldy 2,453 ullolm~1.s, eonsistiug of482,584 aores. 

By 1935, there were 5,507 allotments, consisting of2,OS4,055 Rcrcs (218,136 Rt:rCS were 

alienated from tdbai ovmersirip by 1935), The Big Hontand Pl'yoJ: Mountains were not 

aHotted and still remain rcs~rved for the Crow Natioll and its citizens. 

Accordingto more recent Bureau of Land ManagemontRepons, the land 5tatistics have 

shifted: 45% Crow al1olmcnts; 20% CrowNulion trust land; Rlld 35% non-Indian fee land. In 

811m, the pnttern of surface ownership generally is "checkerboard" with intcrspersed Crow 

Nation trust end fee lands, Crow aUotments (held in trust for individual Tribal mcmber 

owners), und non-Indian fee lands. The sta1istics show limited success of the Crow Nation in 

reacquidng lost lands, but thcrc!!lity is II much larger pllltem of continued loss. 

Today, thero arc nearly 13,000 enrolled citizens of the Crow N!lLion, wi!h approxunately 

8,000 of those resicling within the exterior boundaries oflheReservation. Additionally, a 

recent study indicates that the \1.·jhal population will exceed 20,000 citizens within the next 

few years, whicll will addfurille! stress 10 ourfragUe devcloping economy, and shmply 

increase Ihe level ofbash:numan services needed by our population. OUr goal is to invite 

more of om citizens to return home 10 live and resumc tribal relaLions, but wemust be IIble to 

oIfeL' U:ibuinwillberu solid oppommities to hold stable and meaningful ~rnployment, hDmes, 

and educational opporttlnilit:ll. According 10 lhemost recent BIA statistics, our 

unemployment rate is 47%. The Crow Nation has always cmphD!iizcd higher education lind 

we currently have more \:h.'\Il400 annual applications fur higher education assi~!anc~. 

Beclluse offederal ftmding limitations lind illl~lUll budget constrnints, llOwever, we can only 

fund 90 studcnts ~1Ic:h )'Car. 

Ill. addition to providing financia15uppott fOr educatiOtl, wehave a separntely chartCI'Cd 

tribal college (LittleBighom College, "LBBC'') that star)ed operatiomin 1981. LBllC has 

graduated over 300 students to dale. LBHC graduates arc employed on aud around the Crow 

Reservation in a variety ofposifions including teachers' aides, computer tcc1micians, office 

mallageru aud adminislrativc assistants. At least sixty have completed bachelor's degrees and 

are pursuing profession~ in education, ~ocia1 work,humanserviees, science, nllrsing, 

technology, accounting and business, As we move forward ill developing our energy 

1'1lSOmCes, OU!' ovm college can help to provide our citizens with training in new fields for 
61


1201a3.eps

expanded job opportunities, including YO~ational-tecbnical coumes 10 support energy 

development. 

Minemlli, Past and Present 

The Crow Nation has nn opportunity to develop tribal resourws because the 1920 Crow 

Allotment Act, as amended in 1968, reserved alL mincl1Ils, oil and !las on any lands allottcd 

under that Act for the benefit of the entire tribe in perpetuity. Today, although some 

checl:erboarding of mineral rights also exists on the Crow Reservation, subsurface mineral 

llCres are owned primllfilyby the Crow Nation. For example, in the southeast comer olthe 

Reservation, 1.3. billion tons ofre~overnble coal are wholly owned bytheNalion. The larger 

p01tion ofnaturnlresources within the Reservation boundaties are recognized but remain 

largely untapped. 

The CrowNll[ion has dcvelop~d lllimitcd IIffillunt Ilfits resources, typically with ro,'ally 

(and 3tllle tax) )'CVCflUll roccived as the ill!lsor. Although the CrowNation pursued some oil 

and gliB dcvclopmcntbctwecn the 1920s and 1950s, more recent natural gas developmenlhas 

been hampered by luck ofpip~lim; infrllstructurc and the Fcderal Application for PermiL to 

Drill (APD) fee. Most aIour governmenlall'evcnue is d~rivcd fitlm our 37-yearrel!ltiollBhip 

with Westmorolwld Resources,Inc. Over Lhat period, theAbsnloka mioelws produced over 

170 millions tons of coal nnd is the largest pL1vate employcrwithin the Cmw Reservution. 

The Crow Nation has very substantial undeveloped mineral resourees. It is estimated that 

we own3% of the nation's coal resource, exceeding 9 billion recovelltble tons. We have be~n 

exploring our oil and gas reserves, and preliminary estimates indicate that they are signlfiCMt. In addition, we huve large deposits ofindustr.iai minerals, such as limestone and 

bentonite, Finally, prcliminary data suggests that wclwve class 516 wind energy !IS woll!lS 

ether renewable resol1Ices. The Nation is cummtly in talks with various companies regarding 

the development ofthese untapped resources, but bnrliers have slowed 01' PJ,"Ohibiled 

signifkant progress. 

m, Crow Energy Projects 

A. AhsalrJlw MinH 

Th~ AbsalokaMin~ owned ~nd OPel'ated byWestmorellll1d Resources fnc. (WRI), is ~ 

15,OOO·acre singlc pit smfllce cool mine comple/( located neHrHardin, Montana Hnd the Crow 

Indian ReservHtion. WRI mines coal Jessedfrom Ihe Crow Nation pumllant to two differem cll~l 

leases. Themine shipped its iimt coal in 1974, and has been !lstcady and reliable source. afcoal 

to ill; cLlslomers, and revenue to the Crow Nation for II continuous 37 y~arperiod. The Absalolm 

Mine was e;.;pressly developed 10 511Pply Powder Rivel' Basin coal 10 II gt"Oup of Midwestern 

utilities, including Xcel Energy's Sherburne County StRlion near Minneapolis, Minnesota. The 

mine also cnjoys a proximity ad'IHILtage to these custornersrelutive to itl; mru.n competitors. Over 

thc ycars, it ha~ ~\so sold co~110 several otheruppef Midwest utilities as wel1. Coal is shipp~d 

via I! 3S_milc rail spur 10 the main Ilnll ofllLe Budington Northern SlInt!! Fe lliIiIoo~d near 

Hyaham, Montana. WRI is currently evaluating a SUbstantial investment in the construction ofa 
62


1201a4.eps

westward bound milrOJid connection to facilitaJe clal trallsporhilioo to explorewe:;t COlIS! and 

~porl "oal.~L"" opporlunilica. 

Tho Absaloka Mine can producl:' up to lIpptwdll\lllely 7.5 million tons of cool annuuily, 

and ita:; produced over 112.6 rnillk>ns of to!lS I)vor ils life. VlRT oomllllly pays substantia! 

pmductKm!m{es ar.d cool foy!l.Uies to the Cr<:ow Nation; $9.9 million oftaJ!cs and $9.1 million of 

royalties were p1'Iid iu WiG. Those fees urnl taxes anwunted to 23% of the Eross revenue on the 

mine IlISt y~ltt. The~e tllf'CS und royalties are Icproscutllth'e oflhe mine's fil1lmcinl contribution 

over !htl pmt b'(lvf:ral years. 'The significant portion of the Crow Nmion's ll.OA-l'ooeral revenues 

corne from the Absaloku Millt:, In 2010, these reYCl1ues accoWlled for approximately IWO-t:hird5 

oflhe Nation'S non".fudcmd budget. WRT employ; a Vlll'lety ofskilLed, mnnllge.tial, PtIJ~lona~ 

nod hourly employees, wilh an annual average saint)' of OV<.lr $62,000 and II total annual 

employment expeus~ of ~lmntely SI6 million do1lru.s. The Absaloka'MinI! is the Jarccst 

privaio employer oierow Tribal members on a resel'V~ion thnt struggles witlt r.n \Illemployment 

rate tlmt e1(ceeds 4'1%. More {han 70% !Jf tbo mine's 163 mcmOOr v>'Orkforee oonsisls of Crow 

'fribal members Md affiliates. Witholl! qu~ti(m, lire Ab.~3Ioka Mine is Il::ltical to the Crow 

NaHall's fimmoilll independence llIlW, over the past 31 ycafS, 1IIId wclllnto tlle fut\lro.. 

The Absalokn Mine ~on'inues to lltruggle financially with <!ompeti.tion .fl:om the larger 

Powder River coal mines, &n.d with the compctitiN advantl!ge provided to Powder River (':o~l 

tbro\lgb. ihe impact ora pl'iw differential created by 3U1filf (802) emissions I1Ilowanc:es under 

l1tle IV of the CJean Air Act. Thecompctitivcn~s and (he continued opem\ionoflhe minCo has 

been sIgnifioantly fuclllwt-:ld by the flI.:.: b~ne1its m~d~ pl}~3ibl(l by th~lndian Coal Produotion 

Tax Crecllts ('tllelCPTG"}iJ\dudw in too 2005 E~i;:,rID'Poliey Act Wid begirmiog io 200(';, Th" 

lCPTC~ neutrdi2:ed tile eoai price diifel'l.lntililreialoo to the 802 emission !l.llowaocos. Without 

!he ICPTC. the Ah:mloka Mimn'iould have =d to opere::~ Ilmrcby ending a gllbslalltiai 

rcwmle murce fur the Crow Nation, CvntimlallOO ofl11O ICPTC is cr;r.ca! to tile future cfthe 

Abaaloka MIne and file stabiHt-j ofreYel1.1.l<l to the Crow Nation, 

The Crow Nation is proud of its 37-ycar pa1n~[ship with WeslmorellUld on tbe Ahsaloka 

Mine. Tho Crow Nation seeks to CIlsnroilie continued ~conomic vlabillty ofl/w Absalok~ Mine, 

as lhe Tribal revenue and jobs thai it provid~ are ~li overriding lmperaUve :!Or the Nadoll and its . 

eitizens. 

B. Many Sttrl'$ CTL I'rqjXf 

The C,"QW Ndioo has bean wruldng sim:e 2008 tu de\'Olop n very significant Coal-toLiquids (CTL) project witllin tOOCrow IndiallR.es:rv~ticn C!llled the Many Star3 CTL Project. 

T11e Pl'Ojeut will C(ll\slst ofa new surface ('ad mil1~ ruuI a proWln dir:.:c1 caalliqllefaclioo. prozess 

plant that sequesters CO2, USes less WlIter Md is more eftkient than conventional indirect e01l1 

Uqueihctionprojec,$ opemling in tho world today. This (llc~Jl-coaL technology ba.~edproject 

offcrs the best long-teml opporturuty for the CrowNation to mono1i2e OUI' lower-quality coal 

(l,%els and is u milieu! ecouolllicne<:essity for the Nation. The CTL project willlllso J;lI'ovJdc a 

crilicallyneeded key dotlle.q\!c energy source to 1M United States and help n:duu(: Amerioa's 

dCPlmdonet> OIl fOJ:l)ign oil. 
63


1201a5.eps

However, nue to there~~[ ",collOmie downlurn mid investoreoncciTIs about fhture 

govornmentpolicy towards eTL and nncerlain permitting rcquil'ernenls to allow Cflrbon 

sequestration, tlUs project has beenstnlggliog to move forward. EVen with the cun·en!ly robust 

comolodity market rortransportation fut'h, pf()je~trisk due to historical uncertainties with such 

commodity markets is still II deterrent to investors. 

The Many Stars erL Projectwilltargel conversion orup to 2 billion tOilS ofCrowcoai 

overthe life ofllie project, initially producing 6-8,000 barrels of liquid products per day and 

ultimateJy expanding to produce up to 50,000 barrels ormorc ofJiquid prodw[s perdU}'. TIle 

Crow coal would be converted to ultra-c1cmtfuels, such as synthetic jel fuel and diesel fuei at flit 

estimated yield of 1.5 to 2 barrels ofliquid productp~r Ion meom. Thus, wben considered in 

traditionaluil and gas terms, this prcjeothas the oppomlllityto responsibly develop and 

monetize II world-class 3-4 billion bnrrel oilt1eld. TIs ability to supply high-quality jet and other 

fne! for the U.S, military will also contribute 10 llational security. 

For the Cl"owpcopk, the success oflhe Ma:1.y Sturs Project is absolutely critical to elld 

dcomles of poverty and creale the long tenn economic viability oflhe Crow Nalion. Th.e. fitst 

phase oflbe integrated surfucc mine and CTL plaut win create up 10 2,OOOjobs during an initial 

three year constl'1.lctionperiod with the m:pcetaticn that a significant pOition cfthcsejobs would 

continue as the plant is cxpwidcd dUline: the subsequent 10.1.S years. The number ofpermnnent 

operations jobs is expected to growfrom 250 10 90'}upollthe CClllmencem~nt oCinitiai 

operations of both the mine lind plant. Thejobs cl1:ated by Ihis project wuuld include high level 

p()gitions, such as enginoers and managers, as well f\S skilled trades (mechanics, elechiciE1l1s, 

welders). In addition, income generated by th~ project co\lld serve to support ille Nation's 

severely underfunded education and health careprograms and support the devclopment of key 

infra~lructu(e en Ihe Crow Reservation to improve the JiV6S mits citizens. 

C. Olher CI"il!V Cad D~ve/opJ/lenf 

For m~ny yeans, memhel"S of the Crow Nation have watched !l. nearly continUQUS slream 

of unit trains cross the Reservation every day on the BNSF Railway, carrying someone else's 

coal tCl market. The Nationims lIctive plllIlS 10 d~."e1op severa! himon tntlS ofuitra_low_sulfur 

con11ooated·in thescutb.east~mportion oftheRescrva.tlon, for markcrn that the Absaloka Mine Is 

not weU-positioned to serve. T11esenmrloots could lnclude exports 10 Asio, which me C!l\"lootly 

constrained by port tenninai capscity on the west c:mst ~s well as difficulty in permitting new 

coal terminals genm:aJly. 

D. Oir alld gos Del'e/opmenf 

Dllring 2005-2008, the CIOwNation leasBd~ubsl!llltial flI·eas of the Reservalioni'or oll 

and gas exploration and development, using Indwn Mineml Development Act ag~-eemenls. 

Unfortunately, the independent oil and gas companies who leased lhese lunds did not discover 

any conventional oil ploys likethe Bnkkcn formnti~njn northe~steiTI Montana mldNol"lh Dnkota. 

Instead, the conventional oil exploration vo'orkundel"these agreementsrcsuited in dJy boles. 

This leasing activity did prove the existence OfSllbstantial shallow nalu(81 gas re~erves cn 

the Crow Reservation. In August, 2QO!l, Ul·sa Major (an independent oil & gas compuny rrom 
64


1201a6.eps

Oklahoma) beg~n delivering the f[fBI Tribal n~t\Il'1ll grw into the inu,:rslu\c pipeline ~)'s(em from 

the nort~stem ptlrlion of 1b<': Resel'Vlltion. Further ftllHkld development ofUr.'Ia MlljOr'S ga3 

ficld 00s betm ~lowlld by !ow na{urlll gas prices, coupled with the $6,500 p'" well APD f~ 

cll!l1'ged by th"" DiM. -

Following the ;:.rash in oil pri~ and the credit m3rket~ in 1ate--201J8, Ihe indllSlty's 

Interest In leasing Crow oU and gas lands evepotawd, ~d most development plans were 

suspended.. Recently, we have begun to sessome renewed interest, as evidenced by drilUng 

plans fur tllis year on a heavy all prospoot in tile Pryor area on lhe westeJJl portion of the 

Reservation. but tnt): :li6S00 APD fee currently inplnoe reduces the intel"est o[potentiru 

developers. 

The Nation will continue to pursue oil and gas development, koowlng fhnt there are 

substantial natumi gasresoUroes on the Reserva1iOll, trusting that the !lummi hen.vy oil prOSpt:lot 

wm prove cccnOInle;, and bopmgtlilltour luck wm improveolllcrcating other ccnven!icnal oil 

res01.= 

E. Wimf Energy 

The Crow Reservation ellcompa.~Se!l area~ with a significant potential fill' wind energy 

development The O:ow Notiou ha$, wilh the .. '>Sialance oftltcDivisi[)u ofEuergy uoo Mineiul 

Development through Dcpartmonl ofIntcrlor, compiled wind data for lhe past ~eVCfll( y~ws, 

which.indicates a st~ady aud reliable Class 5/6 windmo\l{Ce in 5ev~1"R1 areas of the Rr,scrvation. 

The most slgnifiQantresourcc"arelis aoo also located in dltectproxlmily to existing t!.1.lOOmission 

lines, and are relatively easily accessible using existing paved highways and secon&ry roads. 

The wInd resource mens enoompnss loods held in It )'&iety of ownership paltem5, iMluding 

t.>iba! Imsl, imHvldllli triblllmember llllctroolfs (many ofwlllcJt are.highly frnC'lonated), and 

non-Indian fee llUlds, 

In conjuncfion mlh the Trlbe'shydropowe,r reSOI1[C<lS (di:scl1S>5ed further below), Crow 

wind eners),cttnaiso l'Cduce the net carbon footprint of the Tribe's CTL and othel' coall\lld fossil 

fuel pl'Ojcct by generating pC\werfroru renewable re~OUIces, 

F. HYdr(}PO)ll~I' 

In 1958, the Unlted States condl!Illlled over 5500 acres ofCJ:ow Resel'\'atJon lands for 

building Ycl1oW(ail Dam, Yeilowtcil Dwn bCOEme opcrationailn 1900, The dam generates over 

a half billion kilC\walthoursofpow;:rpcl' yeW', even (bring drought I:cnditions. To date, lhe 

power ~ncrn!ion -revcJ1lleilluive >:xcccded $€OO million dolblrn, AI!ho>J£h lIre um'>' N!\ttOll did 

l'(:ooivc B few million doI!lIr8 for the land takln tl) cr~<a~e Yenowtail Dam, the Crow Nation hft."; 

oover received any pl\),ment from the oogoing rovenun from power generetion. . 

The reet:tli Crow Water Rights Settlement Act (lf20 10 grants 111e Nation (:xe!usive rights 

to develop and market hytirop[)wer fi'om the Yellowtrdl Aftcl'bny Dom (inuncdiately downslreom 

fi:om (he main Dam), B6~ed on previous Bnreau ofRec:lmnation studies, tho Yellowtail Afterbay 

should support the economic devclopment of It sm~lI, law·ll~ad Jlydropower moili!), with an 

estimated capacity of 10-15 Megawatts. The: Nation is cun'Cutly commissioning aIeasibility 

S!l..-.!yto confum!hat potential, ami to evahmte trnrn:misl;ienllml m~rkclins oppttJ1uniticll. 0\11' 
65


1201b1.eps

study should be complete in afewmoIlths, and provide'tho necessary information to fmance lind 

constrLlct thc hydwpower fuclIity within the next tw<l yenrs. 

The Nation is considering l.ldng this hydropov.rer production 10 supply the local rural 

coopcrativcs tbat provide ruectric power to the R.e:;ervatlon, 10 replace their current supplies of 

low-cost Federal hydropower which will no longer be availabl", in af",w yeats. It abo appears 

th~t theAficrbay hydropower dcvdopment could improve water quality in the blue-rihbon troul 

fishery on the Big Hom River. 

IV. Obstacles to Continued Development OCCI'DIV Enel'gy 

A.. Lm!'s alld BfA Procedures IlIIpOOfllg Energy D~\'e!oplllent. 

Despite thefaet 1hatthe CrowNati!mhas 3uhslantial resources, numerous practicol problems 

ariSl1 fi:om the previollsly dc!!Cl"ibed history, The Crow Nation aud our energy development 

p~rtnet3 haw c:>pcricnccd, lind continue to experience, systematic problems ill trying to create 

ellergy dwelopment!llld the IICW jobs thutwould be usoociuted with that development. The 

Bureau oflndianAffuh-s (''BIA'') rules ami procedures consistently create bon'lers nnd delays to 

resource development 

For e:Glffiplc, for an oillUldgus Jease approved by Ille Nlltionin January of20D5, 

development did Ilot begin until September of2007 because ofan extremely slow BlA approval 

pl'OCCSS, Within the approval process of that lease, all inventory ofTribally-owed net mineral 

acres was reported lIS 94,000 !lores. However, after the lessee. expended Inrge amounts of time 

nlld money reOXllmining mineral title information, an additionai50,O(l() net Tribal mimral acre, 

was identified and confinncd. An errOl" Oftllis magnitude would be simplyunacceptablemmany 

conlexts, bulin ouroxperience il is not surprising and is fer from unique. 

BrA records for surface and minerai ownership are often erroneous, missing lind out of date. 

These problems callSe significant deJay in preparation of envirowne.ntal documents and oveJ:sll 

]wldJecordsnecessary for business transactions. 111e BlA lacks the necessary staffing to provide 

accurate infonuillion Oll Resel."vationsurfacc and mineral ownership, and to rosolveadditional 

questions that arisB.. It is extremely dlfficu1tto compete with off-reselvation developmem: 

becauseofthaoo problems. Many companies view this, in addition to aU other problem~, as 

another prollibitive cost ofdoinll business within the Crow Reservation, 

R~ceut BIAprocedurcs havo made it inere1ll!ingly difficult to carry out exploratlon progmms 

for energy and other minerals on the Reservation. For example, coal exploration illVolves 

drilling cOl"chob to verify the quantity and quality of coal, whioh take only a few days to drill, 

are accessed by existing undeveloped moos, and arc fully reclaimed after completion. The BlA 

now requires full appraisals approved by the Office of the Special Trustee prior to oht£tining 

consents from thealloued surrace owners to drill the core holes nnd even to cross olhel" 

al1otmenl~ to reach the drill sites. These procedures, 1llong witll e!lviroJl!llentol nssessmenls, 

result in long delays in oxp]orationprogrwus that could otherwise be completed inn matter of 

months. 
66


1201b2.eps

The obstacles posed bythcsc procedures are CVCJl more prohibitive fur othel'millerol 

expllJllltion, sucll as bentWlito, which re~uire a large numbeJ: of ausel' samplcs that have even 

less ellvll'onmentnl impactlll1d involve much smruler amounts oflllcovernble minernIs. 

Finally, upnr( from the costs and delays caused by Eli\. staffing sl1Ol1a.ges and unnecessary 

proecdufCS, jllWs that limit the dumliou ofcommeroinllenses on Tlibal lands also impede 

development of large long-tel1ll projects such lIS the MrulY StMS CTL projuct. Many of these 

obstacles could be addressed by CongressionallegislllliollSUchns the Indian Energy bill 

developed j!!lSt yeur by the Senale Commitlcr: on Indian Affairs Rnd introduced last sesgion. 

B. Inability If} Plan 011 Crmfinued, AVGl1abi1fty ofFederallneomc Tax Incentives 

There aro severn! current federnl tax jncentive.~ fur ecouomie dcvclopmCllt In Indian Country, 

including lUlaccelcmted dopreoiati(ln provision, an Indian wag~ tv.x credil, and the: Indi!lIl Coal 

Production Tax Credit. However, the accelerated depreciation and wage 1ll1( eflldit both have 

suoollmtial limitations Ihal severely limit their usefulness for mojor Tribal energy development 

projects. . 

Morc importantly, all ofthcse tax incentives will expire again within the next 2 years, and in 

the PMt they h~ve been extended only one year at a time. For mnjor Tribal energy prQiecls, such 

as a coal mine or a CTL project with 6-10 YelIrdevelopmenl lead times, the inability to rely on 

the continued availability oflhese incentives means that they CaI!l1ot be factored into the 

economic evaluations thllt arc necc3ill1ry for investmenl decisions. 

As unther e)l:plained helaw, pennanent extensions and appropriate modifications tQ these 

existing tax incentives wmdd faeiJilah: jobs lind eoonomic ililvelopmenl, pf!l1icuIady energy 

development, on the Crow ReservatiQnand forall QfIndian Oluntry. 

C. TlwBLM"APDFee~ 

Begirutingwilh theFY 201)8 Appropriations Ae! fortheDepru:tm<mt wInterior, Congrcas 

required the Bu1"C8u ofLnnd Managemen.t ("BLM") to charg=. a$4,000 fee to process evcry 

ApplicationflJr I'crmil 10 Th·ill ("APD") on the fedc!'al and fndian lands on which it supervises 

oil andgas development activity. l'heAPD Pe!) has since been increased by s\\bseqncnt 

appropriations legislation 10 $6,500 for cach new well. The CrowNalion has coolinually 

pl."Otested IheappliG{l\ion of this fcc to tribal lands, lll1d has songht rc!icfinnUU1~rous ways, but to 

dale, no solution lms been reach~d. 

This $1i,500 fue oomparcs 10 drilling permit fees of less t1JllII $100 off the Resel'vnlionin the 

State ofMonlanR. Obviolllily, it is a disincentive to el(plore for oil and gas on Indian lnnd.'! 

compared to off-reservation State and ree lands. As indicated abovo, it has been a major faelor 

in the suspension ofadditioualuBturel gas field exploration and development Qn the Crow 

Reservalion by our partner, Ursa Major, who also noldsleases outsIde !he Reservation. The 

APD feeis a particular blll"deo for the type of shallow (less Ihan 150(1' dc<::p), low-producing gas 

wells being drilled byUr8a MojO!". The cost of completing (hose types ofwGlIs is less lhllll 
67


1201b3.eps

$150,00(1 eaoh, SO the APD Fcc reprcs()t)ts a large portion of the capital inycstment ncccsslIIY to 

bP"Jlg additional wells into production. 

Tho APD Fe~ also disooUl"P.ges effioi~nt development and slows explorll1ion efforts. Fol' 

Cl"ploratoIY "wildcat" drilling where success is not a sure tiring, tho developer ean only alford 10 

get permits forn emlplc of wells 1\\ a lime, seeifthey hit gas, and usa, file APD's for II couple 

more aDd repeat the oycle. Without the high APD Fee, the developer would be able to obtain 

manypennits andimmediately drill eddilionul wells ift11c fi[$t ones arc successful. Considcrinl: 

tile lead time for issu!U\ce afthe drilling permits (60-9lJ days), thcAPD Fee causes delays orup 

10 II yeardeve10ping IIhandfttl of new wildcat wells, in addition to adding tens ofiliousnnds 

dollars of non-productive costs that limit the Nation's abiliiyto charge taxes and royalti\l3 on the 

future production. 

A. Federal Tax In~el1ril'e Legislation 

1. Indian Caal P/'rJducl/o/1 Ta." CrBilil 

The ZOOS Energy Policy Act provided the Indian Coal Production Tax Credit beginning 

in til)( year 2006, based tlpOn tbe number of tons of Indian coal produood IUld sold to an unrelated 

party, "Indian coal" is coal produced from reserves owned by rut Indian Tribe, 01' held In tnlSt by 

the United Stntes fol' Ule benefit of an 'IndiWi Tribe, 11.'1 of June 14, 200S. The tax oredit is 

calculated by totaling the number oflons ofJndian coal pIodu~ed and said, thenmulliplying that 

number by $1.50 (for calendar YOIII'S 2006 through. 2010). For tax years between 2010 and 

December3!, 2012, the total number is multiplied by $2.00. 

The origin ofthi~ production tax credit began witb the goal ofneulralizing the impact of 

price differentials created by sulfur (801) emissions allowances, thcn:by keeping Jndian coal 

competitive in thc regional mru:kct. Without the credit, the CL'OW'S Absaloka mine 'would have 

lost its supply contmct and likely been closed in 2005, which would have had a devl1$tlng im1lact 

on the Nation given that this mine provides a si&nifieant portion of the Nation's government's 

operating budget. The tax credit has ,worked to keep the mine eompellllt'c and open. Now, in 

2011, this tn:-: credit remains critieal1y important because, withoul it, Ihe mine's economic 

viability would be in serious jeopardy, Thi5 tax cr~drtremains critical to the current opemtion of 

the existing Absaloka Mine mId provides sufficient incentive to help us attrai:t additional 

investment for future energy projects. In order to protect existing oporeuons and encourage 

growth, the Indian Coal Production TM Credit should be mede FOlll1anent, should be allowed tu 

be 11Slld against altemativo minimum tax. and Ihe requirement that 100 coo.! be sold to lin 

unrelated person should be deleted to allow lIud encourage faeiliLies owned, in whole or in part, 

by Indilln NauollS to participate lind bC!lllfit from the =dit. 
68


1201b4.eps

2. Acce/cmted Depreclarion Allawrume 

Inch.ldcl in file O!)lniintf Budget Reconcilia(ion Aci of] 993, POD. L. 103-66, 101 Stat. 

55&-63, codified!lt 7...6 U,S,C, 168m, 3Elb). mid 45(A), are tWll Imlllllll"csen<ation-lrnscrl FeEl"..r1l1 

tax lnrentlves designed. to increaie im~ent and employment on Iridian J!\Uds. TEe theory 

behind there lnce!ltive~ W!lS lli&t they wcu!d ad in truldilm to encourage pyiva!1O sector 

invesimmt!llln econo.l7'j(l nclivity on Indian f<mds ~eroS$ tbc United StI!l.cs.. Ncili1er luel.llltive.is 

aVP.ilable for gaming-related infrastructure or aetiviti{lS, The incentiws - Ill\ =Icrntcd 

dep.recialion nlIDWtlJl\lC for ''qnalified property" placed In service on !Ill Indhm IeSerVnUQII and lln 

Indian cmploym~nt ctcdlt to cmployers Ihal hire ~"ual!ficd employees" - expired on December 

31, 2003, and hay;;} beom included in the shoot-teJ:m "cILtenders plIckage.~" of (j)(piring 1M 

in~enlivcs siJl<:e that time. 

Etwrgy projects :require siguificant equipment and physical infia:slmclure. and involv~ tho 

hiring of large munbezs of employees. Crow:s not Rlor.c in Ol1:resOilrCe holdings; .fur uveral 

IlldiWlllalio:;s, e;;'ima!.eS ofp,o\'en and umleveloped er:ergy resouroes on Ind!an lands S''(ggest 

that revenues 10 tribal uwner.;: would -exoeedlerr.; ofbi!lions in cummt d:illm"!;. As the energy 

development market im,provcs and the fcder~l program~ enacted in <lle 2005 pro-dtwGLopmcm 

energy law, thelnd/an 'll"flml EJlergyDrn>~rapml:ltf ani &lfD~fmllinalion Act (pub, L. 109-58), 

energy-related activity on Indinnlandswlll1nCl~~ substantially in the years ahead, 

Unrommatcly, one"Yl:af or two-yeIlr extensions of the uceelerated-depreoilllion proviEion 

do not provide an1ncc:ntive fOl' investment ofm:w capl!lIlln Indian country for signlflCIln1 energy 

projects, Devcloprnenl of major projects gencmt!y lakes !l decade Of longer. Investors need 

certainty that tI1e berlCfit will be available when the project iniiate.;; operntions in ower to filctor 

tool betJefi.! into Ihdr projected ec;ollOmro models,!lS well as 1:Jvest.nent decisions, A petnUUlcut 

c]{l~Qn "YOllld f.{ltl:reas this problem, makillg tire incentlv;} attnmtl'R to investor;} in kmg-funn 

energy projects 00 Indian lands. 

As cuu:ently written, the depreciatIon allov.'llnce cOl.l!d be interpreted to mude oortain 

types of energy-related infraslruehm: rela1ed to energy resource produc1ioll, gen.emlion, 

transportatiQll, tranmllsruon, di~tribution and (:Veil carbon sequeslMion uotlvities, Wo 

recommend that lanWl~ge b~ lns5!.1ed to statutorily clarify thaI thi:.; tYPI:I of physical infrdSlruc(urc 

oxprossly qualifies for me accelerated depreclnticnprovbioll. Inproposlng this olarifioation, it is 

n(lt our obj~clive to I'~imjnate non·en~;gy activities thai might benefit nom tb.e diOptecirruon 

allowanoo. Indood, jf adopted, th:l language we propo~ woold not rlW;:oornge olher forms of 

eCO!1Oilllo development i.n Indian eOUIrtry. 

By providing this c1anfying I!l!lgllOgt! and this pcnmmcnt eILtcnsiun, 1111) o~elerated 

depreciation provision will finally accomplish it!) purpose ~ enhancing the ability of Indian 

nations to attrael energy industry pnrtnel."s to develop long-term projeots utilizing the 'Wt Indian 

rC30Urcca avaiiabJe, 
69


1201b5.eps

3. lmiiall Empruymenl Wag~ Cl'edll 

The !993 Act IIlso included 1m "Indian employmeul \Vllgc(!fedit" with a cap not to 

exceed 20 pcrcOlIt (2Cfh) oftbe excess ofquclifred Wll~ and helllthjn~llrlln~ cOs($!hal an 

employer pays or incurs. "Qoolified employe~~" are defnred as lIllIo11ed members oran rmlian 

tribe OJ'the SpOl1:Je rolln enrolled member of uti Indian tribe, wllero subslantiallYlIll of the 

services perfuO'JNd during the period of employment are p6l.fonned within an Indian IeEerVation. 

Wld the prinelplli ~csidcncc of Sllch employee ",illle pcrfonning S!lch serv1ees is on oc nearthc 

ro5\lfValion in whIch. [he scn;icesam to be pcrfcrmed.Se.e 26 U.S.C. 4S(e}(I)(A}-(C), 111.e 

cmploye~ will not be II'Catcd as lI""'qualified employee" ifthe lomI (l.molll'.tof{ffimllll. employee 

emnpcmmtkm el(ceeds $35,000. 

As written, the wage tax credit is c01llpletcly ineffective lind does nohttrllctpdvatcsector lnvt'.stmenl in enel'DY projects within indian e[)unhy. The provision is too complicated and 

private entili<,.'J c\JllJ,',ludl;llh~t the eost!llll:l cffnrt ofealeulating the .x-cdU outweIghs IDlY benefit 

that it m[l.Y provide. Wo therefore propose loot the wage and healtl, credit be I'evised along the 

lines oftltO-llluch-herakied Work Opportunity Tax Credit, which is 1~9 ~'OmpHeated nnd )ll[)l"e 

Ji.lrely to beused by the b\lsiness oommullily. WeprDposereblioing the prohibHkm contained in 

the existing wuge and health c .... edit ngair.st temmurting ami rehiring an ~.mployec lind propose to 

alter the definition of the ~m. "Irulinn Reservation" 10 wpl'.l!o lllgilirnrna DppGrtonities for 

employing tribai members wlio live en theil' reservations, even though the acttmI busmu55 

activity nifty hi;: off~reservllfion. This emendmont would aTIowlhc Indian Employment Wage 

Credit 10 ro()~ effectively fulfilllhe putp03C fur which it was originally cnact~d, 

B. Ellmina(e the BLM APD FfJe on Indian Lands 

Tim ctllum! APD fee or $6500 is II Itindr.!Uleelo the Crow Nation's goal ofdevell)plng Hs 

oit and gas resource, The dis.parity between U:.e eest for drilling on tribal JlIIlcis under fOOernl 

jmisdietion 'lCtsUS kuma umlnr state jllris(l;el~m prevents allY w..eaninglul .:!.:onomic de ... ~lopment 

of the reierves existing rut the Crow RelAA'Vation, 1.h r~dcre! goVe!lUl'.tltt srillutd net. through 

Us tItlSt respOOlIlihility. cl1arge llctminislretiw f'.lcS that prohibit or Nnw economically iJNfficient, 

the development oftdba! tr\lst assets. Indlao l~llds should beexemptcd from BLM's APD fee, 

C. Needfm' GOl'ermllfllt Sllp}NJl'l,for the MallY SlarJ en Projf.rl/ 

Several C1'L projeots haw: been illlnoullced in the U.S.; however, ill of1hcse p!:ojectll are 

struggling due u, the high fmnneinl commItment needed 10 plan and implement these projects in 

1111 u!K:erhl.in eeOllonue aud 'cnergy policy cnvlronment. Investors end banks are l~ticenl 10 :Rmd 

"lirnt of a ki!1d" proje::ts, evCIl loough the tochMlogy has been pnwen C'<lmmereially in other 

countries Ilnd in UEm1O\lStrnfiQIl pkm!s hm"<i in llie United Smte3, As II re.wit, 11le Nation is 

cun;cntly wQJkfng to liml n new indnstry pilI'tne1'to sponser and devo;i(lp tlw Many Slars project; 

WId r::J1ltlills committed to using ciemH:oal t~htrology to monetize Crow coal re.'Y.lurccs (lVCl' the 

long term while minimizing embofl dioxide emissions, 
70


1201b6.eps

Bywny o!ooropw.ison, Chin~ hl m(Jving furward rapidly In 1hc CTLsootor, wIth 12sltes 

ali:eady producing at co=ial demOOlWlltion s~ale of 4-3,000 b~rrels p~r day with four 

colum.etclaL PrQj&ls nearing start of construotlon at capacities up to SO,COO barrels/day. 

Ba&Ild "n the forcgoing, the fuli(lwills .key action. al'C eruclal 101' tite viability of the 

Crow'5 Many Stl1rs eTL Project 

• Gnlnt tho Dcpe.t1mont tl'f Defense and otill:r f~ocl1ll agencies the ability 10 enter 

intn lang-term, gnw..llnfee.d fillcl1-p!"iml lXltl!tacts that will \Lndctpln ill<: cmmnerufuJ. 

fra:neworkneeded forthese l)'p'Js oflong-reua CTLp::Qje<:ls; 

• Extend the Illiplrmion date of th~ c!lIrem 5Q..cents per gallon. allernalivc. raci 

eX<lioo tax credit fur a definitivCI time peliod rather than year-ro-ycar extensions as has 

boon done reccntly. Since it could lake roughly 6-10 years fot these types of projects to 

bC(:ome fully planned, implcmcntod, ~d opcratiolllll, investtlts nrc concerned that tile 

incentives will expire before Ihe plant stalls up. Consider providing the tax credit for /I 

pmod of IO yeurs followhlg mrt·up for those projects starting wnstructicn prior 10 

2{1J5. 

• SupJlOrt H Iv,;::!tly percent (20'%) i!wcstmeltttruc credit too: eaclJ CTL p!ant plared 

in *rvicc b..ul>r\! Inc swnc futUH: ilirtr.::, mJdlor Bilow ;OD percent. (100%) nxpanslng of 

inVe$1lllC1lls m !he yew: of <.ll1pilm outlay for 81).Y CTL pla!lt in o,Pe.«ati(lll by the SIlIl1C 

fuhltO date. 

• SUpport DOE and DOD ruh.'.matjyc fuel dc::vc111ptllCi1t programs as pur! ot a 

compl'ehensiVtl energy policy that suppom tbe full spectrum of ell<::l1\Y tecllnologies aoo provid~s a level playing :field fm' doVtlloplng new innovation in clean coRl technl)logy to 

meet rr~tiolllil cnviromncntal goals. 

• Remove zmernl !fficerlllillty in errergy policy that wJl provIde invcsWrs 

confidence to support n<..'w innovation jlJld m~or investment in the <llean cooi seokir. Our 

obsm:vati:on' is that policy \1!lcal'tlllfliy with WI.pect III ciOOlI ooaI SlIPF011 equates kl 

paralysis in trying to move fr~ tv:!any StEIrs CTL Projtlct fm ... \~rd wilh its investors. 

VI. Couc1udon 

Gjvm our vast miner.!! re&lJurce5, the GrowNation can, lind should, be self-suffioient. We 

seek to d~vclop our mlneralresouroes in aD economka!ly sound, envinmmenlwiy r~sponsible 

and safe m3rt!lel'that is consistentwilh Crowculture and b~1iefs. The Crow people o!;l!-lired of 

saying OW-I we Ilt(! re'!(.>urer; rich nad cash pllor. 

We respecl\'uJlyn"qtlest your l:ssi&mw~ io Sl>ttbg the fuumkrtkm ;0 )naKe our viBlon a reullty. 

We have bee.:l. wm:ldng to develop our e.'lOCgy resom:aes Il!ld to remo .. -e obstacles to succ:~srcl 

.dcvcJ.opment. We hope to build!l. nellJ.\.t¢tm futUl'e when ourownteSOllrces, in our ownbands, 

provide for Ihe,h~allh, hopes Hnd rntu~ ..... OlOUf people. 
71

Æ


1201b7.eps

It is critical that COll{U"tSs act 10 protect rndiall nations' ~overeiguty oV<:L'1hcit natural 

resonrces nnd secure Indinnnuti01m as the primary !,(oYenling enlily uverthciruwn hornebnds. 

This will havE numerous h~ncfils forth", Ioc~l comm!J!\hks 3.~ wdl asthe federal em"-'ttllllllnt 

The Crow Nation bas been 811 ally oiLw tmited Swles an \h..'"OI-.gh it~ hilitory. 

Thciny, 1M CrowN:moo d~ires tn devo;oIop its VIIS! r.arumlreso\lrres no,Qnly furitreJf, but to 

once again help the Ur.itr:d States with 11 new goal - aci>Jevwg energy i!ld~~miencc. ~ccuring a 

domestic supply ofvaluableenergy, and reducillg its dependence on foreign oil. Many members 

oflhe CrowNaLion are veterans of the Unlted Stntes Atmed Forces EUld we have 11 special 

l1nderslarJding andxespect forwlmt it ~ould mean to our sons IIlld daughters in coming-yearn ifni! 

of our ellergy nc<:ds were met here at hllme. 

It Is time forL~e CrowNation 10 become EUl energy-prutnel'. However, our vision can only 

become a I'cality wlth yom' ass!stanee. We !JIrongly fed that the vision starts today.