[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                               
                   H.R. 4524, H.R. 4748, H.R. 6368, 
                            AND H.R. 6443

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

                          LEGISLATIVE HEARING

                               before the

               SUBCOMMITTEE ON INDIAN AND INSULAR AFFAIRS

                                 of the

                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                       Tuesday, December 5, 2023

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-81

                               __________

       Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 
       
       
       
       
       
       
              [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
              

              
              


        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
                                   or
          Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov          
                                ______ 
                                
                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 

55-666 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2024 











      

                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                     BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Chairman
                    DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Vice Chairman
                  RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Member

Doug Lamborn, CO                     Grace F. Napolitano, CA   
Robert J. Wittman, VA                Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI
Tom McClintock, CA                   Jared Huffman, CA
Paul Gosar, AZ                       Ruben Gallego, AZ 
Garret Graves, LA                    Joe Neguse, CO 
Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS         Mike Levin, CA
Doug LaMalfa, CA                     Katie Porter, CA
Daniel Webster, FL                   Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR         Melanie A. Stansbury, NM
Russ Fulcher, ID                     Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
Pete Stauber, MN                     Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, NY
John R. Curtis, UT                   Kevin Mullin, CA 
Tom Tiffany, WI                      Val T. Hoyle, OR
Jerry Carl, AL                       Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
Matt Rosendale, MT                   Seth Magaziner, RI 
Lauren Boebert, CO                   Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
Cliff Bentz, OR                      Ed Case, HI
Jen Kiggans, VA                      Debbie Dingell, MI
Jim Moylan, GU                       Susie Lee, NV   
Wesley P. Hunt, TX                  
Mike Collins, GA                      
Anna Paulina Luna, FL                    
John Duarte, CA                     
Harriet M. Hageman, WY                           

                    Vivian Moeglein, Staff Director
                      Tom Connally, Chief Counsel
                 Lora Snyder, Democratic Staff Director
                   http://naturalresources.house.gov
                                 
                                 ------                                 

               SUBCOMMITTEE ON INDIAN AND INSULAR AFFAIRS

                     HARRIET M. HAGEMAN, WY, Chair
                JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON, PR, Vice Chair
               TERESA LEGER FERNANDEZ, NM, Ranking Member

Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS         Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 
Doug LaMalfa, CA                         CNMI
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR         Ruben Gallego, AZ
Jerry Carl, AL                       Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
Jim Moylan, GU                       Ed Case, HI
Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio      Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio

                                 ------
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                CONTENTS

                               ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing held on Tuesday, December 5, 2023........................     1

Statement of Members:

    Hageman, Hon. Harriet M., a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of Wyoming.......................................     2
    Leger Fernandez, Hon. Teresa, a Representative in Congress 
      from the State of New Mexico...............................     4

    Panel I:

    .............................................................
    Newhouse, Hon. Dan, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Washington........................................     5
    Peltola, Hon. Mary Sattler, a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of Alaska........................................     6
    Issa, Hon. Darrell, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of California........................................     7
    LaMalfa, Hon. Doug, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of California........................................    39

Statement of Witnesses:

    Panel II:

    Freihage, Jason, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Management, 
      Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, 
      Washington, DC.............................................     9
        Prepared statement of....................................    11
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    12
    French, Chris, Deputy Chief, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. 
      Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC..................    12
        Prepared statement of....................................    13
    Erickson, Hon. Jarred-Michael, Chairman, Confederate Tribes 
      of the Colville Reservation, Nespelem, Washington..........    15
        Prepared statement of....................................    16
    Pinto, Hon. Erica M., Chairwoman, Jamul Indian Village, 
      Jamul, California..........................................    18
        Prepared statement of....................................    20
    Rinehart, Richard, CEO, Tlingit and Haida Business 
      Corporation, Juneau, Alaska................................    23
        Prepared statement of....................................    24
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    27
    Carlson, Ervin, President, InterTribal Buffalo Council, Rapid 
      City, South Dakota.........................................    28
        Prepared statement of....................................    29
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    33

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:

    Bureau of Land Management, Statement for the Record on H.R. 
      4748.......................................................    44

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Peltola

        The Wilderness Society, Letter to the Committee dated 
          December 5, 2023 on H.R. 4748..........................    46
                                     


 
 LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 4524, TO AMEND THE INDIAN LAW ENFORCEMENT 
  REFORM ACT TO PROVIDE FOR ADVANCEMENTS IN PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES TO 
  INDIAN COMMUNITIES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``PARITY FOR TRIBAL LAW 
ENFORCEMENT ACT''; H.R. 4748, TO PROVIDE FOR THE RECOGNITION OF CERTAIN 
 ALASKA NATIVE COMMUNITIES AND THE SETTLEMENT OF CERTAIN CLAIMS UNDER 
   THE ALASKA NATIVE CLAIMS SETTLEMENT ACT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, 
  ``UNRECOGNIZED SOUTHEAST ALASKA NATIVE COMMUNITIES RECOGNITION AND 
  COMPENSATION ACT''; H.R. 6368, TO ASSIST TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS IN THE 
 MANAGEMENT OF BUFFALO AND BUFFALO HABITAT AND THE REESTABLISHMENT OF 
  BUFFALO ON INDIAN LAND, ``INDIAN BUFFALO MANAGEMENT ACT''; AND H.R. 
 6443, TO TAKE CERTAIN LAND IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA INTO TRUST FOR 
 THE BENEFIT OF THE JAMUL INDIAN VILLAGE OF CALIFORNIA TRIBE, AND FOR 
       OTHER PURPOSES, ``JAMUL INDIAN VILLAGE LAND TRANSFER ACT''

                              ----------                              


                       Tuesday, December 5, 2023

                     U.S. House of Representatives

               Subcommittee on Indian and Insular Affairs

                     Committee on Natural Resources

                             Washington, DC

                              ----------                              

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m., in 
Room 1324 Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Harriet M. 
Hageman [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

    Present: Representatives Hageman, LaMalfa, Gonzalez-Colon; 
and Leger Fernandez.
    Also present: Representatives Newhouse, Stauber, Issa; and 
Peltola.

    Ms. Hageman. The Subcommittee on Indian and Insular Affairs 
will come to order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized 
to declare recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
    The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on four 
bills: H.R. 4524, H.R. 4748, H.R. 6368, and H.R. 6443. Under 
Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at hearings 
are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member. I 
therefore ask unanimous consent that all other Members' opening 
statements be made part of the hearing record if they are 
submitted in accordance with Committee Rule 3(o).
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman from Alaska, 
Mrs. Peltola; the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Stauber; the 
gentleman from Washington, Mr. Newhouse; and the gentleman from 
California, Mr. Issa, be allowed to sit and participate in 
today's hearing.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I will now recognize myself for an opening statement.

 STATEMENT OF THE HON. HARRIET M. HAGEMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
    CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING

    Ms. Hageman. Today, the Subcommittee is considering four 
bills. First, we have H.R. 4524, the Parity for Tribal Law 
Enforcement Act. This legislation would allow tribal law 
enforcement officers to be considered Federal law enforcement 
officers for the purposes of Federal benefits, pensions, tort 
claims coverage, and penalties for crimes committed against 
them. This would create parity between Federal and tribal law 
enforcement officers in these areas and it should help with the 
recruitment and retention of tribal law enforcement officers.
    As we saw in our previous oversight committee hearing, 
recruiting and retaining good law enforcement officers is a 
huge concern for tribal police departments. This bill would be 
a step towards improving this situation. Everyone deserves to 
feel safe in their community, and we will continue to work 
towards that goal for all Native communities.
    Next is H.R. 4748, the Unrecognized Southeast Alaska Native 
Communities Recognition and Compensation Act. This bill would 
amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, or ANCSA, to 
allow five Alaska Native communities, the Haines, Ketchikan, 
Petersburg, Tenakee, and Wrangell to form Alaska Native urban 
corporations in Southeast Alaska.
    Each urban corporation would be able to select one township 
of land equal to 23,040 acres of their historical aboriginal 
lands in the Tongass National Forest to own in fee simple. This 
is the same acreage that other Alaska Native urban corporations 
in Southeast Alaska were allowed to select when ANCSA became 
law in 1971.
    ANCSA settled the land claims of Alaska Natives through a 
$962.5 million settlement payment and roughly 44 million acres 
of land, which was divided between almost 200 village 
corporations and 12 regional corporations established by the 
legislation. The five Alaska Native communities considered in 
H.R. 4748 were excluded from this list of Alaska Native 
communities allowed to form Alaska Native corporations in 
Southeast Alaska. Congress did not include an appeals process 
for communities excluded in Southeast Alaska, so only an Act of 
Congress can allow these five communities to form their urban 
corporations.
    The legislation also contains provisions stating the bill 
would not affect any land entitlements for previously 
established Alaska Native corporations, does not affect the 
rights-of-way held by the state of Alaska within the selected 
parcels, and provides the Forest Service access to National 
Forest system roads until a mutual use agreement is entered 
into. Additionally, the parcels to be conveyed would remain 
open and available to subsistence uses, non-commercial 
recreational hunting and fishing, and other non-commercial 
recreational uses with very narrow exceptions.
    Next is H.R. 6368, the Indian Buffalo Management Act. This 
legislation would create a program within the Department of the 
Interior to support tribes and tribal organizations in the 
creation and management of their own American Buffalo programs. 
These programs have benefited American Indians and Alaska 
Natives both economically and culturally.
    Historically, Indian tribes use the buffalo for subsistence 
purposes for thousands of years, incorporating it into everyday 
diets and livelihoods. By the end of the 19th century, however, 
buffalo were near extinction. Conservation efforts were enacted 
to restore buffalo numbers and the species has had a dramatic 
recovery. The Department of the Interior already provides some 
funds to tribes and organizations to promote the tribal 
management of buffalo. However, there is currently no formal 
program within the Department. The funding for this program has 
also fluctuated over the years and a formal program may help 
with stabilizing funds and provide more oversight.
    Last on our agenda is H.R. 6443, the Jamul Indian Village 
Transfer Act, what would replace approximately 172.1 acres of 
land owned in fee simple by the Jamul Indian Village into trust 
for the benefit of the Tribe. Located in San Diego County, 
California, the Jamul Indian Village is part of the Kumeyaay 
people of Southern California, otherwise known as the Mission 
Indians. Despite tracing their history back 12,000 years, the 
Jamul Indian Village did not receive Federal recognition until 
1981. Since then, the Tribe has slowly gained a land base for 
itself.
    The Tribe has submitted fee-to-trust applications to the 
Department of the Interior with the oldest submitted in August 
2015, but these applications have not been finalized. This bill 
would place the land in a trust legislatively rather than 
continuing to wait on the administrative process. Additionally, 
H.R. 6443 would prohibit any Class 2 or Class 3 gaming under 
the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act on the parcels that are taken 
into trust.
    I am hopeful we can all work together to continue to ensure 
the bills considered today gain support and move through the 
legislative process. Thank you to the witnesses for being here 
today. We appreciate you being here in person. We know that you 
have traveled quite a distance, but it is extremely important 
to have live testimony as we go through these bills, so thank 
you for that.
    The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Minority Member for a 
statement.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. TERESA LEGER FERNANDEZ, A REPRESENTATIVE 
    IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you 
once again to the tribal leaders as well as agencies who are 
here with us today for this important legislative hearing, and 
to everybody in the audience. I so enjoy always looking out and 
seeing so many who are invested in the issues that we address 
here in this Committee. And once again, we are addressing 
issues that look at how do we make sure we are bring parity, 
how do we right historic injustices, and move forward on behalf 
of our Native American, Native Alaskans, and Hawaiians. 
Although we are not taking up any of those bills today.
    But the first bill I would highlight is Representative 
Newhouse's Parity for Tribal Law Enforcement Act. I am a proud 
co-sponsor of this key tool to increase police officers in 
Indian Country. Just last month, the Subcommittee held an 
important oversight hearing on public safety in Indian Country 
and heard how hard it was for the BIA and tribes to recruit and 
retain law enforcement officers. This legislation hopefully 
makes working the beat on our tribal reservations a bit more 
enticing by extending Federal benefits and eligibility to 
tribal law enforcement officers.
    BIA has seen a 30 percent vacancy rate across all law 
enforcement positions. Tribes are seeing similar and sometimes 
higher rates. Congress needs to do more to support tribes and 
their public safety needs.
    The next bill is H.R. 4748, Representative Peltola's 
Unrecognized Southeast Alaska Native Communities Recognition 
and Compensation Act. Once again, our Subcommittee is tasked 
with addressing historic injustices in how the United States 
has treated our Alaska Native communities. This time we are 
called to remember that Congress left out five Alaska Native 
communities from the settlement of aboriginal land claims in 
Alaska. The bill would amend the ANCSA of 1971 to authorize the 
Alaska Native residents of five Southeast Alaska communities to 
form urban corporations.
    The area of land to be conveyed is a very small portion of 
the Tongass National Forest based on historical and factual 
records undertaken reported back in 1994. I appreciate the fact 
that our first Native Alaskan Congresswoman is moving this bill 
forward, a mere three decades later. I look forward to hearing 
from you, Mr. Rinehart, on this important issue for our 
communities.
    Next, we have H.R. 6368, the Indian Buffalo Management Act 
from Representative LaMalfa. My friend and colleague, 
Congressman Don Young, passed this bill through the House last 
Congress. I was proud to support. The tradition of buffalo is 
very strong in New Mexico, so I am glad to see this legislation 
before us once again. It would enable the Department of the 
Interior to assist tribal governments in the rehabilitation and 
management of buffalo herds on tribal lands. Through a 
permanent buffalo program at the Department of the Interior, 
tribes will be better equipped to protect and conserve buffalo 
habitat and really bring tribes into the decision-making 
process since we know they know so much more than the rest of 
us on how to deal and manage these magnificent animals.
    Lastly, we have H.R. 6443, the Jamul Indian Village Land 
Transfer Act from Representative Issa. This would integrate 172 
acres of land across four parcels into the Tribe's reservation 
boundary. The bill supports overall government operations, 
increases tribal housing, and allows tribal members to have a 
place to come together.
    We have four bills on the agenda today that highlight a 
range of important topics in Indian Country. As any of the 16 
pueblos and two Native Nations, the Jicarilla Apache and Navajo 
in my district can tell you, we know that each of these issues 
are very important to every Native people because they touch on 
the things that are crucial, from law enforcement, public 
safety, the lands that you hold dear and sacred and have called 
your own, and the need to come together as community.
    Every tribe deserves the ability to protect their people, 
access their historic lands, care for sacred animals, and have 
a place to come together as a community.
    I look forward to the testimony from our witnesses.
    With that, I yield back, Madam Chair.

    Ms. Hageman. Wonderful, thank you. I will now recognize Mr. 
Newhouse from Washington for 5 minutes to speak on his 
legislation.

              STATEMENT OF THE HON. DAN NEWHOUSE, A  
           REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 

    Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Chairwoman Hageman, as well as 
Ranking Member Leger Fernandez. Thank you very much for letting 
me sit in on your Committee as a guest, and let me also thank 
you for all the vital work you do on behalf of Indian Country. 
It is very much appreciated.
    As you said, I am here today to introduce the Confederated 
Tribes of the Colville Reservation as well as being here on 
behalf of my legislation, which is H.R. 4524, the Parity for 
Tribal Law Enforcement Act, which as you have said is included 
in today's hearing, so thank you very much for this 
consideration.
    H.R. 4524 aims to improve hiring and also increase 
retention for tribal law enforcement officers to better protect 
Native communities and help address the particular crisis of 
the missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls. Across the 
country, and particularly in Washington's 4th Congressional 
District, many tribes have serious problems recruiting and 
retaining qualified law enforcement officers who serve on 
reservation lands. Oftentimes, this is a result of training 
limitations, the bureaucratic nature of credentialing tribal 
officers, and frankly, subpar pay. This often leaves tribal 
communities with an inadequate law enforcement presence.
    The consequence of this can be fateful as tribal 
communities work to combat the opioid crisis, as well as the 
MMIW crisis that I described earlier, and also to protect 
families and local businesses. And I might say that many of the 
other local law enforcement agencies also recruit from tribal 
agencies because they are so well trained, so it is difficult 
to compete in that kind of a situation.
    H.R. 4524 will fix this issue by classifying tribal law 
enforcement officers as Federal law enforcement officers for 
the purpose of Federal benefits and pensions, among several 
other provisions. As has been noted, it has strong bipartisan 
support, and I am proud to say strong organizational support as 
well. Back in July, I introduced this legislation with 
Representative Kilmer from my state of Washington as well as 
Representative Davids from the state of Kansas. And today, this 
legislation boasts 14 bipartisan co-sponsors as well as nine 
tribes and Native American organizations who support it.
    One of the supporters is the Confederated Tribes of the 
Colville Reservation. Today, they are represented by their 
Chairman, Jarred Erickson, who is a resident of Nespelem, 
Washington. Welcome, Chairman Erickson, appreciate you being 
here and thank you for attending this hearing today. But most 
importantly, I want to thank you for always being willing to 
work with me and my office on important policy issues that are 
so crucial to Indian Country around the United States. Your 
support of H.R. 4524 has been essential in moving it through 
the legislative process and I certainly look forward to hearing 
your testimony on it today.
    But I also look forward to the testimony of all the 
witnesses that are today and thank them very much for making 
the journey to Washington, DC.
    With that, Madam Chair, I yield back, and thank you again.

    Ms. Hageman. Thank you, Mr. Newhouse. We just had a hearing 
a couple of weeks ago about security on our tribal lands, and I 
think that this is a very important bill and appreciate your 
willingness to bring this forward and help us to move it 
through the process.
    The Chair now recognizes Mrs. Peltola from Alaska for 5 
minutes to speak on her legislation.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. MARY SATTLER PELTOLA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
    CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA

    Mrs. Peltola. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I would like to 
echo what the Representative from Washington, Mr. Newhouse, has 
said about both of you and your good works for Indian Country. 
Thank you.
    Good morning. Today, I am thrilled that we are discussing 
how to write a wrong that has lingered for over half a century, 
the Alaska Native Claim Settlement Act of 1971, or as we refer 
to it, ANCSA, enabled economic self-determination for Alaska 
Native people and has benefited all Alaskans for the last 53 
years. However, five communities, Haines, Tenakee, Ketchikan, 
Wrangell, and Petersburg were left out of this landmark 
legislation.
    A 1994 congressionally authorized study of ANCSA found that 
there was no substantive reason these communities should have 
been left out. It was an oversight, but one that has had major 
consequences. They never got the chance to claim, manage, and 
benefit from their traditional lands, resulting in decades of 
lost opportunities for economic growth and cultural grounding.
    My predecessor, Congressman Young, knew this was an 
injustice and championed this bill all his years in the 
Congress. The landless bill's historic progress in this 
Congress is a product of his tireless spirit and the hard work 
of a bipartisan group of Alaskans, including one of our 
witnesses, Tashee Richard Rinehart. Most recently, the bill 
received an endorsement from the Wilderness Society, an 
important recognition by a leading environmental group, that 
there is nothing more pro-environment than Alaska Native 
stewardship of Alaska Native lands.
    Additionally, the United States Forest Service, the current 
manager of the land that this bill would transfer, has 
expressed their desire to address this long-standing inequity 
in their testimony for today's hearing. Given the unanimous 
support for this bill from the Alaska Native communities across 
the state and especially in Southeast Alaska, it is clear that 
a consensus has emerged, and it is time for Congress to join.
    In the spirit of encouraging Native American management of 
traditional land and resources, we also have the Indian Buffalo 
Management Act in front of us today. For hundreds of years, the 
American Buffalo was central to the culture, spiritual well-
being, and livelihoods of our Natives across our nation. The 
ruthless dissemination of buffalo herds that occurred in the 
mid-19th century dealt a devastating blow to Native communities 
that have long relied on these animals.
    This bill is an important step toward restoring once 
flourishing buffalo herds which have been vital to the 
cultural, spiritual, and subsistence traditions of Native 
Americans throughout many states. This was another bill that 
Representative Young felt strongly about. He knew that we must 
put the future of this majestic animal into the hands of those 
who have relied on it for nutrition and cultural heritage 
alike.
    The theme connecting these bills is simple self-
determination, or I like to say self-agency. The ability to 
control your own destiny is as American as anything can be. I 
am grateful for the progress we are making towards that goal 
today and I look forward to working with my colleagues to 
advance H.R. 4748 and H.R. 6368.
    Madam Chair, I yield back the remainder of my time.

    Ms. Hageman. Thank you. The gentlewoman yields back. The 
Chair now recognizes Mr. Issa from California for 5 minutes to 
speak on his legislation, and thank you for being here.

     STATEMENT OF THE HON. DARRELL ISSA, A REPRESENTATIVE  
          IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

    Mr. Issa. Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member Fernandez.
    I don't get enough opportunities to do things that are win-
wins for the American people. The Jamul Indian Village Land 
Transfer Act is a win-win. It not only brings onto reservation 
land not just ancestral land but land in which members' multi-
generations have been buried. It includes their cemetery, which 
has long been outside of their hands. It includes the entrances 
and exits to the existing reservation, but most importantly, 
for this once landless tribe, it includes most of the 172 acres 
to be used to rebring the dispersed residents and tribal 
members back onto the reservation.
    The history of the Jamul band of Kumeyaay Indians is one 
that is very common in California. They were displaced and 
landless for many years. When they finally received a small 
parcel of land as a gift from a landowner, they sought to and 
were able to put it into trust. They have since that time built 
enterprise on the land, but six acres was never enough for them 
to live on the land in entirety.
    I think the most important part, and not controversial, is 
that this piece, the fourth piece of land which is 
noncontiguous is noncontiguous both because of development that 
has occurred on their historic land and because, in fact, this 
historic land had long been a ranch of a non-Native American. 
But not to say that there hasn't been a connection. Many of the 
tribal members worked on that land. They have a close 
association. They walked up the dirt road from their 
reservation to this land year, after year, after year.
    They have now been able to secure the land and buy it, and 
one of the important things that the Tribe has taken as 
initiative is to preserve that ranch house and to, in fact, 
make it suitable to be there in perpetuity in addition to 
taking what was originally developed and agreed by the county 
to be 92 parcels for home building but make them a little more 
generous. Cut down the total number, provide more greenspace, 
and preserve the nature of the land. All of this is part of a 
well-orchestrated plan, both the plan that was approved by the 
county and now is being enhanced by the Tribe.
    I have been honored to work with the Tribe throughout the 
process. This will be my sixth or seventh land in trust for one 
of my 21 tribes, but this will be one of them that is most 
essential. Imagine hundreds of family members and six acres. 
Even if those acres were still only for residents, it wouldn't 
be sufficient, and that is why this land in trust needs to be 
moved up so they can quickly begin the construction that they 
would like to do, knowing that their home for their tribal 
members will always be in their hands.
    And I would like to thank the Chairwoman and the Ranking 
Member for hearing us and hopefully for helping us get this 
across the finish line this cycle.
    Thank you, and I yield back.

    Ms. Hageman. Thank you. And thank you for being here and 
introducing this important bill.
    I think that if you look back over the last year in terms 
of the hearings that we have held and the people that we have 
invited to come and talk to us about the issues, primarily the 
tribal members, righting some of the past wrongs associated 
with landownership and use has been one of our priorities. 
Addressing Indian Health Services has been another one.
    But I think one of the main priorities with the witnesses 
that we have come in from tribes all across the country has 
been to address putting lands in trust as they should be, 
addressing the situation with the Native Alaskans, attempting 
to right those wrongs. We have had the Winnebago Tribe. We have 
had the Oglala Sioux from South Dakota attempting to get some 
land for them so that they can have a memorial for the Wounded 
Knee, which is so critically important for our history and 
remembering that history.
    So, I appreciate the opportunity to have these land bills 
brought before this Subcommittee so that we can address some of 
those historical wrongs and hopefully move forward with 
correcting them and addressing other issues from Indian Country 
and our tribal members.
    With that, I am going to now introduce our witnesses. Mr. 
Freihage, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Management, Bureau of 
Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, 
DC; Mr. Chris French, Deputy Chief, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC; the Honorable 
Jerrad-Michael Erickson, Chairman, Confederated Tribes of the 
Colville Reservation, Nespelem, Washington; the Honorable Erica 
M. Pinto, Chairwoman, Jamul Indian Village, Jamul, California; 
Mr. Richard Rinehart, CEO, Tlingit and Haida Business 
Corporation, Juneau, Alaska; and Mr. Ervin Carlson, President, 
InterTribal Buffalo Council, Rapid City, South Dakota.
    Let me remind the witnesses that under Committee Rules, 
they must limit their oral statements to 5 minutes, but your 
entire statement will appear in our hearing record. To begin 
your testimony, please press the ``talk'' button on the 
microphone. We use timing lights. When you begin, the light 
will turn green; when you have 1 minute left, the light will 
turn yellow; and at the end of 5 minutes, the light will turn 
red, and I will ask you to please complete your statement. I 
will also allow all witnesses on the panel to testify before 
Member questioning.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Jason Freihage for 5 minutes.

  STATEMENT OF JASON FREIHAGE, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF 
    MANAGEMENT, BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 
    THE INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, DC

    Mr. Freihage. Chair Hageman, Ranking Member Leger 
Fernandez, and members of the Subcommittee, my name is Jason 
Freihage, and I serve as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of 
Management for Indian Affairs at the U.S. Department of the 
Interior. Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony 
regarding H.R. 4524, Parity for Tribal Law Enforcement Act; 
H.R. 6368, Indian Buffalo Management Act; and H.R. 6443, Jamul 
Indian Village Land Transfer Act.
    H.R. 4524 amends the Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act to 
provide that tribal law enforcement officers acting under a 
tribe's compact or contract under the Indian Self-Determination 
Education Assistance Act would have the authority to enforce 
Federal law within the tribe's jurisdiction provided they 
complete training, background requirements that are the 
equivalent to employees of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office 
of Justice Services.
    Additionally, under the bill, the tribe must have adopted 
policies and procedures that meet or exceed those of the BIA 
OJS for the same contracted activity. The bill also provides 
that tribal law enforcement officers acting under a contract or 
compact shall be deemed eligible for benefits applicable to 
Federal law enforcement, including Federal death and injury, 
retirement, and pension benefits. Tribes often struggle to 
recruit and retain law enforcement officers across Indian 
Country, particularly in remote areas. The provision of Federal 
benefits to tribal law enforcement officers will help immensely 
with tribes' ability to recruit and retain law enforcement 
officers and provide safety in their communities.
    Under the leadership of Secretary Haaland, improving public 
safety in Indian Country and addressing missing and murdered 
Indigenous peoples is a top priority. The Department supports 
H.R. 4524 as a means to strengthen public safety and justice in 
Indian Country.
    The North American Bison, commonly called buffalo, is the 
official mammal of the United States and plays an important 
role in the history of the continent. For many tribes, buffalo 
play a significant role in their identity, subsistence, 
economic development, conservation, and land management 
practices. Buffalo sustained many tribes in North America for 
many centuries before they were exterminated by non-Indian 
hunters in the mid-1800s.
    The successful restoration of buffalo allows an Indian 
tribe to benefit from the reintroduction of buffalo into diets 
of members of the Indian tribe. Working to restore buffalo and 
increase tribal access to buffalo is a priority for the Biden 
administration and Secretary Haaland. The BIA's branch of Fish, 
Wildlife, and Recreation funds buffalo restoration and 
management activities through annual appropriations.
    H.R. 6368 would establish a permanent program within the 
Department to develop and promote tribal ownership, 
conservation, and management of buffalo on Indian lands. Under 
H.R. 6368, two entities are eligible for program participation. 
Indian tribes, as defined by ISDEAA, and tribal organizations 
under Section 17 of the Indian Reorganization Act. To avoid the 
exclusion of tribal corporations federally chartered under 
Section 3 of the Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act, the Department 
recommends H.R. 6368 use the same definition of tribal 
organization as ISDEAA.
    H.R. 6368 does not provide any funding to support the 
permanent program that the bill establishes, which will be 
contractable by tribes under ISDEAA. In the event a tribe 
utilizing ISDEAA as amended to contract or compact that 
permanent program, the Secretary may be required to utilize 
funds from other programs to meet that goal. We support the 
bill's goals and welcome the opportunity to work with sponsors 
and the Subcommittee to provide technical assistance.
    H.R. 6443 would place approximately 172.1 acres of land in 
San Diego County, California, owned in fee by the Jamul Indian 
Village, into trust for the benefit of the Jamul Indian 
Village. The bill makes the lands part of the reservation for 
the Jamul Indian Village and includes a prohibition against 
Class 2 and Class 3 gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory 
Act.
    The parcels to be transferred into trust are comprised of a 
parcel with Daisy Drive, which is the main access road to the 
Jamul Indian Village's existing trust land, a parcel that 
contains culturally significant church and cemetery, and the 
Jamul Indian Village plans to use the two parcels for housing 
development, a clinic, and an administration building. The 
department supports H.R. 6443, restoration of tribal homelands, 
as a priority for the Department and the Biden administration.
    Chair Hageman, Ranking Member Leger Fernandez, and members 
of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide 
the Department's views on these important bills, and I look 
forward to answering any questions that you may have.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Freihage follows:]
  Prepared Statement of Jason Freihage, Deputy Assistant Secretary of 
         Management, Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior
                 on H.R. 4524, H.R. 6368, and H.R. 6443

    Chair Hageman, Ranking Member Leger Fernandez, and members of the 
Subcommittee, my name is Jason Freihage, and I serve as the Deputy 
Assistant Secretary of Management for Indian Affairs at the U.S. 
Department of the Interior (Department). Thank you for the opportunity 
to present testimony regarding H.R. 4524, ``Parity for Tribal Law 
Enforcement Act,'' H.R. 6368, ``Indian Buffalo Management Act,'' and 
H.R. 6443, ``Jamul Indian Village Land Transfer Act.''
H.R. 4524, Parity for Tribal Law Enforcement Act

    H.R. 4524 amends the Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act to provide 
that Tribal Law Enforcement Officers (LEOs) acting under a Tribe's 
contract or compact under the Indian Self Determination and Education 
Assistance Act would have the authority to enforce Federal law within 
the Tribe's jurisdiction provided they complete training and background 
requirements that are equivalent to employees of the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs Office of Justice Services (BIA-OJS). Additionally, under the 
bill the Tribe must have adopted policies and procedures that meet or 
exceed those of the BIA-OJS for the same compacted or contracted 
program, service, function, or activity.
    Importantly, the bill also provides that Tribal LEOs acting under a 
contract or compact shall be deemed eligible for benefits applicable to 
Federal LEOs, including Federal death and injury, retirement and 
pension benefits. Tribes often struggle to recruit and retain LEOs 
across Indian country, particularly in remote areas. The provision of 
Federal benefits to Tribal LEOs will help immensely with Tribes' 
ability to recruit and retain LEOs and provide for the overall safety 
of their communities.
    Under the leadership of Secretary Haaland, improving public safety 
in Indian country and addressing the Missing and Murdered Indigenous 
Peoples crisis is a top priority for the Department. The Department 
supports H.R. 4524 as a means to strengthen public safety and justice 
in Indian country.
H.R. 6368, Indian Buffalo Management Act

    The North American Bison, commonly called buffalo, is the official 
mammal of the United States and plays an important role in the history 
of this continent. For many Tribes, buffalo play a significant role in 
their identity, subsistence, economic development, and conservation and 
land management practices. The historical, cultural, and spiritual 
connection between buffalo and Tribes cannot be overstated. Buffalo 
sustained many Indian Tribes in North America for many centuries before 
they were exterminated by non-Indian hunters in the mid-1800s. Indian 
Tribes have long desired the reestablishment of buffalo throughout 
Indian country. The successful restoration of buffalo allows an Indian 
Tribe to benefit from the reintroduction of buffalo into the diets of 
the members of the Indian Tribe. Working to restore buffalo and 
increase tribal access to buffalo is a priority for the Biden 
administration and for Secretary Haaland. The BIA's Branch of Fish, 
Wildlife, and Recreation funds buffalo restoration and management 
activities through annual appropriations. H.R. 6368, the Indian Buffalo 
Management Act, would establish a permanent program within the 
Department to develop and promote Tribal ownership, conservation, and 
management of buffalo and buffalo habitat on Indian lands.
    Under H.R. 6368, two entities are eligible for program 
participation: Indian Tribes, as defined by the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA), and Tribal 
organizations organized under Section 17 of the Indian Reorganization 
Act (IRA). To avoid the exclusion of Tribal corporations federally 
chartered under Section 3 of the Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act, P.L. 74-
816, the Department recommends H.R. 6368 use the same definition of 
``Tribal organization'' as ISDEAA.
    H.R. 6368 does not provide any funding to support the permanent 
program that the bill establishes, which will be contractible by Tribes 
under ISDEAA. In the event of a Tribe utilizing ISDEAA, as amended, to 
contract or compact that permanent program, the Secretary may be 
required to utilize funds from other programs to meet the Department's 
statutory obligations under ISDEAA.
    Buffalo once roamed this continent in the tens of millions and the 
Department appreciate efforts to improve management of this vital 
species. The Department recognizes our shared interest in modernizing 
buffalo management in Indian Country and appreciates Congress's 
attention to this effort. We support the bill's goals and welcome the 
opportunity to work with the sponsors and subcommittee to provide 
technical assistance.
H.R. 6443, Jamul Indian Village Land Transfer Act

    H.R. 6443 would place approximately 172.1 acres of land in San 
Diego County, California, owned in fee by the Jamul Indian Village into 
trust for the benefit of the Jamul Indian Village. The bill makes the 
lands part of the reservation for the Jamul Indian Village and includes 
a prohibition against class II and Class III gaming under the Indian 
Gaming Regulatory Act.
    The parcels to be transferred into trust are comprised of a parcel 
with Daisy Drive which is the main access road to the Jamul Indian 
Village's existing trust land, a parcel that contains a culturally 
significant church and cemetery, and the Jamul Indian Village plans to 
use two parcels for housing development, a clinic, and an 
administration building.
    The Department supports H.R. 6443. Restoration of Tribal homelands 
is a priority for the Department and Biden Administration.
Conclusion

    Chair Hageman, Ranking Member Leger Fernandez, and Members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide the Department's 
views on these important bills. I look forward to answering any 
questions that you may have.

                                 ______
                                 

Questions Submitted for the Record to Jason Freihage, Deputy Assistant 
 Secretary of Management for Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior

Mr. Freihage did not submit responses to the Committee by the 
appropriate deadline for inclusion in the printed record.

            Questions Submitted by Representative Westerman

    Question 1. Regarding H.R. 4524, does the Department of the 
Interior have information on what percentage of or specified amount of 
funds within tribal self-determination contracts or compacts for law 
enforcement services are suggested to be set aside for tribes to 
provide the pension and benefits for tribal law enforcement officers?

    1a) If yes, would that suggest a percentage of or specified amount 
of funds be the same or a similar amount that the Department of the 
Interior would set aside per federal law enforcement officers employed 
by your agency to pay into each of their benefits?

    1b) Does the Department extend any other funds that would not be 
included in the tribal self-determination contracts or compacts to 
support providing benefits and pensions to federal law enforcement 
officers?

    Question 2. Regarding H.R. 6368, what benefits has the Department 
of the Interior seen from the current funding it provides to preserve 
the historical, cultural, traditional, and spiritual relationship 
between buffalo and Indian tribes?

    2a) Please elaborate on how a formal program could help better 
guide resources.

                                 ______
                                 

    Ms. Hageman. Thank you.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Chris French for 5 minutes.

 STATEMENT OF CHRIS FRENCH, DEPUTY CHIEF, U.S. FOREST SERVICE, 
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, DC

    Mr. French. Good afternoon, Chair Hageman and Ranking 
Member Leger Fernandez. It is a pleasure to be with you today 
and the Subcommittee members.
    My name is Chris French, and I am the Deputy Chief for the 
U.S. Forest Service over the National Forest System, and I am 
pleased to be here today to discuss the United States 
Department of Agriculture's views regarding the conveyance of 
lands within the Tongass National Forest to five Native 
villages in Alaska as proposed under H.R. 4748.
    USDA recognizes the special relationship that Alaska 
Natives have to their land in Southeast Alaska, which are the 
homelands of the Tlingit, Haida, and Tsimshian people. We 
acknowledge the important customary, traditional, and current 
use of the Tongass National Forest and the contributions of the 
land and resources to the social and economic well-being of the 
region's communities. Through our Joint Secretarial Order on 
fulfilling the trust responsibility to Indian tribes and the 
stewardship of Federal lands and waters, USDA recognizes that 
it is the policy of the United States to restore tribal 
homelands to tribal ownership and to promote tribal stewardship 
and tribal self-government.
    H.R. 4748 would amend the Alaska Native Claim Settlement 
Act and authorize Alaska Native Residents of Haines, Ketchikan, 
Petersburg, Tenakee, and Wrangell to form urban corporations. 
The legislation directs conveyance of specifically identified 
surface estate lands within the Tongass National Forest in the 
amount of 23,040 acres to each corporation, totaling 
approximately 115,000 acres. The bill directs conveyance of 
subsurface estate of these parcels to the Sealaska Regional 
Native Corporation.
    The USDA supports the intent of the legislation, and we 
look forward to working with the Committee, bill sponsors, and 
tribal communities to address this long-standing inequity. We 
continue to have productive conversations with the relevant 
stakeholders, and we look forward to discussing with the 
Subcommittee and the sponsor of the bill's legislation about 
the potential impacts on the Tongass National Forest program of 
work as well as opportunities to promote tribal and/or 
Indigenous stewardship of our Federal lands and waters 
consistent with the Joint Secretarial Order.
    Chairman Hageman, Ranking Member Leger Fernandez, that 
concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any 
questions that you may have on this important bill.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. French follows:]
   Prepared Statement of Chris French, Deputy Chief, National Forest 
    System, United States Department Of Agriculture--Forest Service
                              on H.R. 4748

    H.R. 4748 would amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 
1971 (ANCSA) to authorize Alaska Native residents of five Southeast 
Alaska communities (Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee, and 
Wrangell) to form urban corporations. The legislation directs 
conveyance of specifically identified surface estate lands within the 
Tongass National Forest in the amount of 23,040 acres to each 
corporation, totaling approximately 115,202 acres. The bill directs 
conveyance of subsurface estate of these parcels to the Sealaska 
Regional Native Corporation.
    The proposed conveyance of 23,040 acres to each new corporation 
conforms with the acreage provided to the ten Southeast Alaska 
communities that were recognized and determined to be eligible under 
ANCSA. Unlike ANCSA, H.R. 4748 does not require that the selected acres 
include the township in which all or part of the community is located, 
nor that it be contiguous and in reasonably compact tracts. The 
selected NFS lands are in 61 named parcels, including some that are 
split into distinct parts or include adjacent islands. The parcels 
range in size from 17 to 9,092 acres and are located across seven 
Forest Service Ranger Districts. All parcels contain old growth and 
cumulatively approximately 80,000 acres, or 69% of the proposed 
conveyance, are considered productive old growth. Nearly all the 
parcels contain inventoried roadless acres and 52% of the cumulative 
acres proposed for conveyance are roadless.
Background

    The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act effected a final settlement 
of the aboriginal claims in Alaska through payment of $962.5 million 
and conveyances of more than 44 million acres of Federal land. There 
was a distinction made in ANCSA between the villages in the southeast 
and those located elsewhere. Prior to the passage of ANCSA, Alaska 
Natives in the southeast received payments from the United States 
pursuant to court cases in the 1950s and late 1960s, for the taking of 
their aboriginal lands. Because Alaska Natives in the Sealaska region 
benefited from an additional cash settlement under ANCSA, the eligible 
communities received less acreage than their counterparts elsewhere in 
Alaska. Congress named the villages in the southeast that were to be 
recognized in ANCSA. The communities of Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, 
Tenakee, and Wrangell--the five communities addressed in H.R. 4748--
were not among those listed.
    Alaska Natives living in the five communities applied to receive 
benefits under ANCSA and were subsequently determined to be ineligible. 
Three of the five appealed their status and were denied. 
Notwithstanding the determination of ineligibility of some communities 
for corporate status under ANCSA at the time, Alaska Natives in these 
five communities were enrolled as at-large shareholders in the Sealaska 
Corporation. The enrolled members of the five communities comprise more 
than 20 percent of the enrolled membership of the Sealaska Corporation.
Analysis of Identified Conveyance of public lands from the Tongass 
        National Forest lands

    Due to the high value of these lands for multiple uses on the 
National Forest, the Forest Service has concerns that the currently 
proposed conveyance of lands will affect the ability of the Forest 
Service to implement the stated goals of the Tongass National Forest 
Land and Resource Management Plan across program areas, including 
meeting current timber harvest goals and the transition to young growth 
timber harvest.
    The Federal government manages subsistence harvest of fish and 
wildlife on federal lands in Alaska. Once lands are conveyed from 
National Forest System ownership, they no longer fall under the Federal 
Subsistence Management Program. The proposed legislation generally 
addresses subsistence, allowing for the lands conveyed to newly 
established native corporations to remain open and available to 
subsistence under applicable law and subject to reasonable restrictions 
by the corporation on public use. As proposed, the state of Alaska 
would regulate hunting and fishing on the conveyed lands and the newly 
formed corporations would decide who may access their lands for that 
purpose.
Summary

    USDA recognizes the special relationship that Alaska Natives have 
to the lands of southeast Alaska, which are the homelands of the 
Tlingit, Haida, and Tsimshian people. We acknowledge important 
customary, traditional, and current uses of the Tongass National Forest 
and the contributions of the land and resources to the social and 
economic well-being of the region's communities. Through joint 
Secretarial Order on Fulfilling the Trust Responsibility to Indian 
Tribes in the Stewardship of Federal Lands and Waters (SO 3403), USDA 
recognizes that it is the policy of the United States to restore Tribal 
homelands to Tribal ownership and to promote Tribal stewardship and 
Tribal self-government. In keeping with the joint Secretarial Order, 
the Forest Service is entering into co-stewardship agreements with 
Tribes in Alaska and across the United States.
    USDA supports the intent of the legislation, and we look forward to 
working with the committee, bill sponsors, and tribal communities to 
address this long-standing inequity. We continue to have productive 
conversations with the relevant stakeholders and look forward to 
discussing with the Subcommittee and sponsor of the bill the 
legislation's impact on the Tongass National Forest's program of work 
as well as opportunities to promote Tribal and/or Indigenous 
stewardship of our federal lands and waters, consistent with the Joint 
Secretarial Order.

                                 ______
                                 

    Ms. Hageman. I thank the witness for his testimony.
    The Chair now recognizes the Honorable Jarred-Michael 
Erickson for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JARRED-MICHAEL ERICKSON, CHAIRMAN,  
    CONFEDERATE TRIBES OF THE COLVILLE RESERVATION, NESPELEM,  
    WASHINGTON

    Mr. Erickson. [Speaking Native language.] Hello. Good day, 
Chair Hageman, Ranking Member Leger Fernandez, and members of 
the Committee.
    [Speaking Native language.] My name is Jarred-Michael 
Erickson. I am the Chairman of the Colville Business Council, 
the governing body of the Colville Tribes. I am accompanied 
today by C. Brown, the Colville Tribe's Chief of Police, who is 
directly behind me.
    Thank you for inviting me to testify on H.R. 4524, the 
Parity for Tribal Law Enforcement Act. I want to thank 
Congressman Newhouse for introducing this bill and for 
participating in today's hearing. Half of the Colville 
Reservation is within Congressman Newhouse's district, and we 
appreciate his interest in tribal law enforcement and the 
crisis of missing and murdered Indigenous women.
    I would also like to thank Deputy Secretary Freihage for 
his willingness to meet with our representatives to discuss 
details about the bill and how the Department would implement 
it if it were enacted.
    As I mentioned in my written statement, on any given shift, 
the Colville Tribe Police Department has an average of only 
three police officers on duty to patrol the entire 2,275 square 
miles, or 1.4 million acres, of the Colville Reservation. This 
means that an officer's backup is at least 30 minutes away by 
car at any given time, though usually longer. We currently have 
8 tribal officer vacancies out of the 29 police officers in our 
department, which means we are operating at approximately two-
thirds capacity. In September 2022, we had nine vacancies, so 
we have been able to fill one in just over a year.
    This high vacancy rate is mostly due to our challenge of 
recruiting and retaining police officers in rural areas and the 
ability of the Colville Tribes and other similarly situated 
Indian tribes to provide benefits that are competitive with 
those offered by state and local police departments. Because of 
this, there is an ongoing pattern in Indian Country of 
recruiting and training officers only to see them leave for 
jobs with neighboring towns and municipalities that offer more 
attractive benefits.
    It costs Colville Tribes approximately $150,000 to put new 
officers through the academy and train them to be able to 
handle calls on their own. When officers leave for employment 
elsewhere, the Tribe must pay these costs again as soon as we 
can fill the vacancy. I just wanted to also add that we spend 
about $4.1 million of our own tribal funds for our law 
enforcement officers.
    The Colville PD officers not only enforce tribal laws and 
state laws through cross-deputization agreements, they also 
enforce Federal laws. Our officers possess special law 
enforcement commissions, or SLECs. SLECs are agreements with 
the BIA that authorize tribal officers to enforce violations of 
Federal laws. Neither Colville PD officers nor any other tribal 
enforcement officers that possess SLECs receive any additional 
compensation from the BIA for undertaking these duties.
    Our tribal PD assumes these Federal duties out of necessity 
because most major crimes like rape and murder in Indian 
Country are Federal offenses. We need to have officers that can 
respond to those types of calls, conduct investigations, and 
put forward the best case for Federal prosecution.
    H.R. 4524 would allow tribal law enforcement officers to be 
considered Federal law enforcement officers for purposes of 
certain Federal laws, including for Federal pension and 
retirement benefits. For the Colville Tribes, allowing our law 
enforcement officers to begin accruing pension or retirement 
benefits would have several immediate benefits. For young 
officers, the bill would provide a more attractive benefit 
package than the Colville Tribe could otherwise offer. The bill 
would also allow Federal law enforcement officers that wish to 
work in Indian Country the ability to do so while maintaining 
their current benefits.
    As I mentioned, the Colville PD and many other tribal law 
enforcement agencies already perform the duties of Federal law 
enforcement officers. Making this change would put tribal 
officers on parity with Federal officer counterparts and 
recognize the heightened responsibility our officers undertake.
    The Colville Tribe strongly supports H.R. 4524 and urges 
the Committee to approve it quickly. I would be happy to answer 
any questions that you may have.
    [Speaking Native language.] Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Erickson follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Jarred-Michael Erickson, Chairman, 
            Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation
                              on H.R. 4524

    As a rural, land-based Indian tribe, the Confederated Tribes of the 
Colville Reservation (``Colville Tribes'' or the ``CCT'') has unique 
challenges providing law enforcement services to our tribal community. 
Many of these challenges are grounded in recruitment and retention of 
tribal police officers and the inability of the CCT and other similarly 
situated Indian tribes to provide benefits that are competitive with 
those offered by state and local police departments.
    The Colville Tribes strongly supports H.R. 4524, the ``Parity for 
Tribal Law Enforcement Act,'' because it would allow tribal law 
enforcement officers to participate in, on a prospective basis, the 
federal pension and retirement programs applicable to federal law 
enforcement officers. Tribal law enforcement for many Indian tribes 
that have contracted law enforcement from the Bureau of Indian Affairs 
(BIA) already enforce federal laws and have the same duties as federal 
law enforcement officers.
    Providing tribal law enforcement with the same benefits would put 
tribal officers in parity with their federal officer counterparts. It 
would also provide an immediate boost to the CCT and other Indian 
tribes that for years have recruited and trained officers only to see 
them depart for positions with local jurisdictions that offer these 
types of benefits.
Background on the Colville Tribes' Law Enforcement Challenges

    Although now considered a single Indian tribe, the Confederated 
Tribes of the Colville Reservation is a confederation of twelve 
aboriginal tribes and bands from across eastern Washington state, 
northeastern Oregon, Idaho, and British Columbia. The present-day 
Colville Reservation is in north-central Washington state and was 
established by Executive Order in 1872. The Colville Reservation covers 
more than 1.4 million acres and its boundaries include portions of both 
Okanogan and Ferry counties.
    Geographically, the Colville Reservation is larger than the state 
of Delaware and is the largest Indian reservation in the pacific 
Northwest. The Colville Reservation is home to more than 5,000 
residents, which include both tribal members, their families, and non-
Indians. Approximately 50 percent of the Colville Tribes' 9,300 
enrolled members live on or adjacent to the reservation.
    As noted above, the Colville Tribes has contracted the law 
enforcement function from the BIA under the Indian Self-Determination 
and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA). BIA data indicates that there 
are 234 tribal law enforcement programs nationally and that more than 
90 percent of those programs have been contracted by the respective 
tribes under ISDEAA. As a contracted program, the Colville Tribes' law 
enforcement officers work for the Colville Tribal Police Department 
(``Colville PD'') and are tribal, not federal, employees. In contrast, 
for those relatively small number of tribes for which the BIA provides 
direct law enforcement services, those officers are federal employees 
and receive all federal pension and retirement benefits by default.
    Colville PD officers receive full deputy commissions from both 
Okanogan and Ferry counties once they have successfully completed the 
police academy, which allows them to enforce all state criminal laws. 
These commissions enable our officers to better serve the community 
because they often respond to households that have both tribal members 
and non-members residing in the same home. The downside to this 
arrangement is that neither county consistently patrols their 
respective areas of the Colville Reservation.
    Similarly, Colville PD officers also possess Special Law 
Enforcement Commissions (SLECs). SLECs are agreements with the BIA's 
Office of Justice Services that authorize tribal officers to enforce 
violations of federal laws. Neither Colville PD officers nor any other 
tribal law enforcement officers that possess SLECs receive any 
additional compensation from the BIA for enforcing federal laws. The 
Colville Tribes' officers thus enforce tribal, state, and federal laws.
    On any given shift, the Colville PD has an average of only three 
police officers on duty to patrol the entire 2,275 square miles of the 
Colville Reservation and the more than 250 parcels of off-reservation 
trust lands. This means that an officer's backup is at least 30 minutes 
away (by car) at any given time, though usually longer.
    Like other tribal police departments, the Colville PD has multiple 
vacancies that have been and remain difficult to fill. Of the 29 
officer positions at the Colville PD, eight of these positions are 
vacant. Similarly, three of the six dispatch positions are vacant as 
are two of the eight administrative positions. Collectively, the 
Colville PD has a 30 percent vacancy rate for both commissioned and 
non-commissioned officer positions.
    BIA law enforcement is funded at only a portion of the actual need. 
Recruitment and retention remain acute issues even with the Colville 
Tribes supplementing the BIA funding allocation by more than 200 
percent annually.
H.R. 4524 Would Immediately Boost Indian Tribes' Efforts to Recruit and 
        Retain Law Enforcement Officers

    For several years, the Colville Tribes and other Indian tribes in 
the state of Washington have sought to provide a pathway for tribal 
police officers to receive pension and retirement benefits to in assist 
in recruiting and retaining officers. H.R. 4524 would accomplish this 
by providing that tribal law enforcement officers can be considered 
federal law enforcement officers for certain laws, including for 
federal pension and retirement benefits applicable to federal law 
enforcement officers.
    For the Colville Tribes, allowing our tribal law enforcement 
officers to begin accruing pension and retirement benefits would have 
several immediate benefits. First, it would provide a more attractive 
benefit package to would-be officers and would help us keep officers 
that the Colville PD trains from leaving for other jurisdictions. 
Indian tribes nationwide can attest to having recruited and trained law 
enforcement officers only to see them leave because the tribes cannot 
compete with benefits that other jurisdictions provide.
    By providing tribal officers with access to federal law enforcement 
benefits, H.R. 4524 would also open the door for tribes to attract law 
enforcement officers that may be employed by the federal government but 
may wish to work for an Indian tribe without losing their benefits. It 
would also make working for Indian tribes an option for those federal 
law enforcement officers that have reached the federal mandatory 
retirement age of 57 but desire to continue working as a law 
enforcement officer for a few more years. In both cases, the federal 
law enforcement officers could work for tribal police departments 
without losing their retirement benefits or having to start anew in a 
different retirement program. This would equally apply to individuals 
who are leaving the U.S. military, several of whom the Colville PD has 
employed as tribal officers upon them leaving active duty.
    H.R. 4524 is intended as an opt-in for Indian tribes. Tribal 
officers have varied backgrounds and years of service, often in other 
state or local jurisdictions or with the federal government. A small 
number of states have, under state law, allowed tribal officers to 
participate in state law enforcement retirement systems. Arizona is one 
such state. An officer that has several years of service as a law 
enforcement officer in a non-Indian jurisdiction in one of these states 
before working as a tribal officer in the same state may wish to keep 
participating in the state retirement program. As the Committee further 
refines the bill, the CCT suggests that the bill text clarify that 
individual tribal officers may be treated as federal law officers upon 
designation by their respective tribal employers.
    Finally, and as noted above, the Colville Tribes' officers and 
presumably those of the more than 90 percent of tribes that have 
contracted law enforcement from the BIA under the ISDEAA already 
perform the duties of federal law enforcement officers by enforcing 
federal laws pursuant to SLECs. Allowing tribal officers to participate 
in the federal benefits program would put tribal officers in parity 
with their federal officer counterparts.
The SLEC Provisions of H.R. 4524 Would Address Confusion and Treat 
        Tribal Officers Equitably with Federal Law Enforcement Officers

    As introduced, most of the text of the H.R. 4524 was derived from 
section 104 of the ``Tribal Law and Order Reauthorization and 
Amendments Act,'' which the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs 
favorably reported in both the 115th and 116th Congresses. H.R. 4524 
would clarify that tribal law enforcement officers will be considered 
federal law enforcement officers for purposes of enforcing federal 
criminal laws without being required to obtain SLECs provided they meet 
certain training, background investigation, and other requirements and 
are certified to enforce federal laws by the BIA.
    We understand that the BIA originally suggested this provision to 
provide clarity on the legal status of tribal law enforcement officers 
without SLECs and to ensure that those tribal law enforcement officers 
are treated equitably when they are carrying out the functions or 
services contracted from the BIA.
    Currently all the Colville PD's officers have SLECs and annual 
renewals of these agreements proceed smoothly. In past years, however, 
the CCT had difficulty obtaining SLECs because of regional differences 
in the boilerplate SLEC agreements that the BIA has utilized which, in 
the CCT's case, would have confused application of the Federal Tort 
Claims Act to tribal officers when enforcing federal law.
    H.R. 4524 fixes these issues and would provide Indian tribes with 
an additional mechanism to enable their tribal officers to enforce 
federal laws and be treated as federal law enforcement officers for 
liability purposes without obtaining SLECs.
    The Colville Tribes strongly supports H.R. 4524 and urges the 
Committee to approve it as soon as possible.

                                 ______
                                 

    Ms. Hageman. Thank you for your testimony.
    The Chair now recognizes the Honorable Erica Pinto for 5 
minutes.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. ERICA M. PINTO, CHAIRWOMAN, JAMUL INDIAN 
    VILLAGE, JAMUL, CALIFORNIA

    Ms. Pinto. Good morning, Madam Chair, and distinguished 
members of the Subcommittee, and good morning to the Jamul 
Indian Village who is watching, my mom and my nieces. Good 
morning.
    My name is Erica Pinto, and I have the honor to serve as 
Chairwoman of the Jamul Indian Village of California. Thank you 
for the opportunity to testify today on H.R. 6443, the Jamul 
Indian Village Land Transfer Act.
    I have submitted testimony that discusses my Tribe's 
history, our perseverance, and our need for additional trust 
lands. I plan to focus my remarks this morning on our vital 
need for trust lands to ensure access to our reservation, to 
protect our cemetery and church, and to return my people to our 
ancestral homeland.
    My ancestors were a band of Kumeyaay Indians known as the 
Jamul Band. Our people have continuously resided on a portion 
of our aboriginal territory in Southern California since before 
the arrival of the Spanish. For generations, we were without an 
officially declared land base until the Catholic Diocese 
received a grant of our ancestral cemetery for the purpose of 
an Indian graveyard.
    The cemetery is the final resting place for nearly all of 
our relatives dating back to the 1800s. The Diocese later built 
a small church on the land in the early 1900s and allowed us to 
reside together, remain close to each other, our ancestors, and 
practice our culture and traditions. Our commitment to remain 
there, despite the poor living conditions and attempts to 
remove us, speaks to our love and connection to this cemetery 
and the surrounding lands.
    In the 1970s, the Secretary of the Interior initially took 
4.6 acres into trust to establish our reservation. Until the 
early 1980s, our people lacked basic utilities like running 
water and electricity. One shallow well supplied contaminated 
drinking water to my people. Our housing was primarily small 
shacks and trailers. We did without basic amenities in order to 
remain on our ancestral lands near our cemetery to protect our 
culture and our way of life.
    Living conditions for our people were deplorable. The 
Department of the Interior last exercised its authority to 
accept land into trust for our Tribe in 1982 when it approved a 
1.3-acre fee-to-trust transfer. Over time, our ancestral lands 
have diminished from over 1640 acres to only 6 acres, which now 
comprises our entire land base, one of the smallest 
reservations in the country.
    Since the Tribe's lands were accepted into trust, we have 
done our very best to maximize the use of our land. In 2005, we 
made the extremely difficult decision to move off the 
reservation in hopes of a better life with a dream of becoming 
self-sufficient and not relying on the Federal Government. We 
wanted to be able to provide government services to our 
members. However, the removal from our ancestral lands resulted 
in a significant loss of culture, life, language, and community 
since we have been unable to reside together on tribal lands.
    H.R. 6443 accepts these four parcels of land into trust for 
the Tribe's benefit. The land is located within our ancestral 
territory in rural San Diego County, and since this bill 
prohibits gaming, it is important for the Subcommittee to know 
that the Tribe cannot use these lands for gaming purposes once 
accepted into trust.
    The bill protects access to our reservation, preserves our 
ancestral cemetery and church, and it allows us to bring our 
people home once and for all. In addition to tribal housing, we 
plan to build a tribal administration building, a healthcare 
facility, and a police station. We plan to preserve our culture 
and historic sites, including our cemetery, and we plan to 
reinvigorate our culture, including language revitalization and 
reincorporating our traditional foods into our way of life.
    Bringing our members back together will provide them with 
access to our cultural sites and improve services and 
resources. It is vital to ensure our continued existence and 
our right to exercise our self-determination and self-
sufficiency.
    Thank you again to the Subcommittee for holding this 
hearing and for your consideration of H.R. 6443, the Jamul 
Indian Village Land Transfer Act. I would also like to thank 
Representative Issa for his tireless work on behalf of my Tribe 
and all of Indian Country, and I am happy to answer any 
questions. Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Pinto follows:]
 Prepared Statement of Chairwoman Erica M. Pinto, Jamul Indian Village 
                             of California
                              on H.R. 6443

    Chairwoman Hageman and distinguished Members of the House 
Subcommittee on Indian and Insular Affairs, my name is Erica M. Pinto, 
and I have the honor to serve as Chairwoman of the Jamul Indian Village 
of California (the ``Tribe or ``JIV''). Thank you for the opportunity 
to provide testimony on H.R. 6443, the Jamul Indian Village Land 
Transfer Act, and thank you to Representative Issa for his dedication 
to represent the interests of the Native American tribes in his 
district, and in particular for his notable efforts on H.R. 6443.
History of the Jamul Indian Village

    JIV's 6-acre Reservation, one of the smallest in the United States, 
is located in a rural area east of downtown San Diego, California. The 
Tribe's ancestors were a band of Kumeyaay (Mission-Diegueno) Indians 
known as the Jamul Band, who historically occupied their village 
territory in the Jamul Valley northwest of the San Ysidro Mountains. 
The Jamul Band were known as Mission Indians of California because at 
one point, they were under the jurisdiction of Spanish missionaries who 
established missions throughout Southern California for the purpose of 
converting and ``reducing'' the aboriginal population and using them as 
laborers to facilitate Spanish settlement of the area. Historically 
speaking, the Jamul Band is a part of the group of Indians who referred 
to themselves as Kumeyaay people, but were also known politically as 
the Diegueno people because they were under the jurisdiction of the San 
Diego Mission de Alcala during Spanish control of the region. Spanish 
records as early as 1776 reference an Indian settlement at Jamul. 
Members of the Jamul Band have continuously resided on a portion of 
their aboriginal territory since before the arrival of the Spanish 
until present day, which included land within the Tribe's present-day 
Reservation.
    Despite the Jamul Band's legal claim to occupy lands in the Jamul 
Valley, after the United States government acquired California under 
the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the United States agreed to recognize 
land grants of Mexican citizens who decided to remain in California. 
One such land grant was the Jamul Rancho within the Jamul Valley, which 
was part of the Jamul Band's ancestral lands. Thereafter, members of 
the Jamul Band occupying lands located within Jamul Rancho were 
considered by white settlers to be ``squatters,'' and were at risk of 
being displaced from their lands.
    In 1891, Congress passed the Mission Indian Relief Act, creating a 
Commission that came to be known as the ``Smiley Commission,'' with the 
mandate to survey and select reservation lands for each band or village 
of Mission Indians residing within California. Two of the three 
commissioners were not present in California to fulfill the Act's 
mandate, and thus did not participate in the survey and selection 
process. A single commissioner oversaw the survey and selection of 
Indian reservations under the Act. Reports from this commissioner make 
clear that he did not visit any areas south of what is now Interstate 
8, and the closest he came to Jamul Rancho was 22 miles east at Campo.
    The Smiley Commission created under the Mission Indian Relief Act 
did not accomplish its legislative mandate to both select a reservation 
for each band or village, and to include the land and villages that had 
been in the actual occupation and possession of each band or village of 
Mission Indians. The Jamul Band was omitted from the Smiley 
Commission's work, and evidence shows that the commissioners intended 
for members of small bands of Indians to move onto other ``catch-all'' 
reservations that had been established with what was deemed sufficient 
capacity to accommodate additional Mission Indians. Although the Smiley 
Commission thought that the closest reservations would provide for 
small bands scattered throughout San Diego County, this assumption did 
not account for cultural norms among these bands to avoid entry onto 
another band's lands without a specific invitation from that band, or 
the Jamul Band's determination to protect its own culture and way of 
life.
    Therefore, despite the commissioners' intent to provide the Jamul 
Band with a home at a nearby reservation, members of the Jamul Band did 
not move. Rather, the situation for the Jamul Band remained largely 
unchanged, with its members living in abject poverty on its ancestral 
lands but without an officially declared land base, until the Coronado 
Beach Company granted the land holding the Jamul Band's ancestral 
cemetery to the Catholic Diocese ``for the purpose of an Indian 
graveyard and approach thereto.'' The cemetery is the resting place for 
nearly all of the Tribe's ancestors, dating back to the 1800s. The 
Jamul Band's ties to this ancestral cemetery and surrounding lands 
explains their resoluteness to remain there. The Diocese later built a 
small church for the Jamul Band in the early 1900s, and provided a 
modicum of legal protection for a portion of its Indian village. The 
cemetery and church remain a vital part of the Tribe's culture and 
traditions, and are part of the lands that are the subject of H.R. 
6443.
    Following failures of the Superintendents of the Office of Indian 
Affairs in Southern California to effectively engage with scattered 
Indians beyond reservations that had been created for larger Mission 
Indian bands prior to and in conjunction with the Mission Indian Relief 
Act, the federal government appointed a special agent in 1908 whose 
jurisdiction was over the landless Indians of Southern California, in 
order to investigate conditions and ``secure title'' for ``landless 
Indians'' like members of the Jamul Band, who did not then reside on a 
federal reservation, and whose land tenure was uncertain and at risk of 
encroachment by settlers.
    The need for action by the federal government was summarized by 
Special Agent C.E. Kelsey in a letter to the Commissioner of Indian 
Affairs, stating, ``There are no necessities in California equal to 
those of the robbed, starving, helpless people for whom [monies for 
support and civilization of California Indians] are appropriated.''
    Although the federal government was charged with securing title for 
landless Indians who had not been afforded their rightful lands under 
the Mission Indian Relief Act, the federal government's de facto policy 
eventually became to prioritize those Indians and Indian bands who were 
homeless, aggressive with respect to their land rights, or in 
significant conflict with non-Indians who claimed a right to Indian-
occupied land. As the Jamul Band was a relatively small band living on 
aboriginal lands located within the boundaries of privately held land 
at that time, the Jamul Band was largely ignored. This constituted yet 
another failure on the part of the federal government to provide land 
for the Jamul Indians who had steadfastly remained on their ancestral 
land.
Establishment of the JIV Reservation

    As a testament to the Tribe's determination, the Jamul Band's 
Indian Village was the only non-reservation village that survived up 
through the 1970s when the Secretary of the Interior took into trust 
the initial 4.66 acres of the Tribe's Reservation--land that had been 
occupied by members of the Jamul Band since before the Spanish Mission 
era, from time immemorial. Until the early 1980s, the Tribe's lands 
lacked basic utilities like running water and electricity. One shallow 
well at the low point of the cemetery property supplied drinking water 
of dubious quality for Tribal members. Members of the Jamul Band did 
without these modern amenities in order to remain on their lands, near 
their ancestral cemetery, as a way to protect their culture and way of 
life. Although their culture survived, living conditions for the Jamul 
Band were dire, and they severely lacked economic resources to improve 
their standard of living.
    Present-day members of the Tribe are descended from the Jamul Band, 
and the Tribe's lands have been diminished over time from more than 640 
acres to a small 6-acre sliver of land alongside the ancestral cemetery 
and church. The Tribe was formally organized under the Indian 
Reorganization Act (``IRA'') in 1981, when the Jamul Indians determined 
that they would pursue organization as a half-blood community under 
Section 19 of the IRA. Having established its 4.66-acre Reservation, 
the Jamul Indians held an election in May 1981, and ratified a 
Constitution that formally established the Jamul Indian Village. The 
Department of the Interior (``Department'') approved the Tribe's 
Constitution two months later, and the Secretary of the Interior then 
included the Tribe in the next list of federally recognized tribes 
published in the Federal Register. The Department last exercised its 
authority to accept land into trust for the Tribe in 1982, when it 
approved a 1.372-acre fee-to-trust transfer under a grant deed naming 
the Jamul Indian Village as beneficiary.
    Therefore, two parcels--collectively 6.032 acres--comprise the 
Tribe's entire trust land base, one of the smallest in the United 
States. We are thankful that the federal government recognizes that 
helping tribes to reacquire lands--and the placement of those lands 
into trust--is key to tribes' future prosperity and is essential to 
maintain culturally significant areas that are central to tribal 
identity, religion, and beliefs.
H.R. 6443 and the Tribe's Needs for Additional Trust Lands

    As mentioned above, Tribal members endured dire economic conditions 
for over a century, in order to stay near their ancestors' resting 
place and to keep their culture strong. Since the Tribe's lands were 
accepted into trust, the Tribe has done its very best to maximize use 
of its limited trust acreage. It eventually became clear to Tribal 
members that, in order to improve living conditions for future 
generations, sacrifices would need to be made. Beginning in 2005, the 
Tribe's members voluntarily moved off of the Tribe's 6-acre 
Reservation, as a sacrifice to ensure that the Tribe would become self-
sufficient and less reliant on the federal government. Since this time, 
the Tribe's small Reservation has been fully and completely developed 
by the Tribe's economic endeavors, which include a gaming facility. 
This has helped the Tribe to realize its goals of self-sufficiency and 
limited reliance on federal resources.
    Despite this improvement in the Tribe's economic conditions, Tribal 
members' sacrifice to move off-Reservation has resulted in the adverse 
consequence of significant loss of the Tribe's culture, language, and 
community, since its members have not been able to reside together on 
Tribal lands.

    In short, the Tribe desperately needs additional trust lands so 
that it may preserve and protect its cultural sites, and develop 
housing for its members, a health clinic, a grocery store, Tribal 
administrative offices, law enforcement, educational services, and 
other community resources in service of the Tribe's members.

    Additional trust lands are essential to the Tribe's efforts to 
restore its ancestral land base, to ensure that its most culturally 
sacred sites are safeguarded, to bring its members, who are now 
dispersed throughout San Diego County and beyond, home to reside on 
Tribal trust lands, and to provide essential services to its people. 
Development of trust lands is an important piece of the Tribe's overall 
plan for restoration and protection of its culture. The Tribe believes 
that bringing its members back together, and providing those members 
with access to their cultural sites and to improved services and 
resources, is vital to ensure the Tribe's continued exercise of self-
determination.
    H.R. 6443 therefore accepts four parcels of land, totaling 
approximately 172.1 acres located in rural San Diego County, 
California, into trust for the benefit of the Jamul Indian Village of 
California. The Tribe purchased and holds fee simple title to these 
lands.
Fee-to-Trust Parcels

    The first of these four parcels totals 161.23 acres of land held in 
fee by the Tribe. This land is located proximate to the Tribe's 
Reservation, and is within the Tribe's ancestral territory. The Tribe 
hopes to use this property to develop housing for Tribal members, and 
for Tribal administrative offices, a health clinic, child-care center, 
educational services to Tribal members, a community center, law 
enforcement offices and other community resources in service of Tribal 
members. Placement of this land into trust will support the Tribe's 
efforts in cultural and community restoration, and will bring Tribal 
members home to a place they can occupy together.
    Parcel 2 totals approximately 6 acres, is owned in fee by the 
Tribe, and lies nearly 1,000 feet north of the Tribe's current 
Reservation within the Tribe's ancestral territory. Placement of this 
property into trust would help the Tribe to realize its goal to provide 
essential services and community resources to Tribal members, which 
also extends the Tribe's cultural preservation by ensuring the health 
and welfare of members of the Tribe for generations to come.
    The third parcel is the 4.030-acre parcel referred to by the Tribe 
as the Daisy Drive property. This property is contiguous to the Tribe's 
Reservation. Daisy Drive runs through this property and provides the 
only physical access to the Tribe's Reservation, and to the Tribe's 
church and ancestral cemetery. Placement of this property into trust 
will preserve the Tribal community's ability to access the Tribe's 
Reservation, and will preserve Tribal members' ability to access 
cultural landmarks, all via Daisy Drive.
    The fourth and final parcel listed in H.R. 6443 is the Tribe's 
historical church and ancestral cemetery property. This parcel totals 
0.84 acres and is contiguous to the Tribe's Reservation. This parcel 
holds the Tribe's historical church and ancestral cemetery where the 
Tribe's ancestors are laid to rest, and is part of the ancestral lands 
that the Tribe has called home since prehistoric times. The Tribe 
continues to use this property for cultural ceremonies and it remains 
an essential part of the Tribe's history. Placement of the church and 
cemetery property into trust ensures the preservation and protection of 
this culturally significant property for future generations of Tribal 
members.
    Lastly, it should be noted that the Tribe will not use any of these 
parcels for gaming purposes, as H.R. 6443 entirely prohibits gaming on 
these parcels once they are taken into trust. The Tribe will use this 
land solely for the purposes described above, in an effort to protect 
the cultural identity, resources and history of the Tribe.
Conclusion

    JIV is excited by the opportunities that placement of these parcels 
into trust present, but restoration and protection of ancestral lands 
by trust status remains most important. The Tribe has immensely 
improved conditions for its people since its formal federal recognition 
in 1981. I have dedicated my life to service of the Jamul Indian 
Village, and I am exceedingly proud of how far we have come, but it 
remains the Tribe's primary goal to restore ancestral lands and secure 
protections for our culturally significant places. By passage of H.R. 
6443, the federal government would be helping the Tribe to honor its 
ancestors and their sacrifices in order to remain and prosper in the 
place that we have always called home.
    Thank you again to this Subcommittee for holding this hearing and 
for your consideration of H.R. 6443, and to Representative Issa for his 
tireless work on behalf of the Jamul Indian Village and all of Indian 
Country. I am happy to answer any questions that you may have.

                                 ______
                                 

    Ms. Hageman. I thank the witness for her testimony. The 
Chair now recognizes Mr. Richard Rinehart for 5 minutes.

        STATEMENT OF RICHARD RINEHART, CEO, TLINGIT AND  
          HAIDA BUSINESS CORPORATION, JUNEAU, ALASKA

    Mr. Rinehart. [Speaking Native language.] Good morning, 
Madam Chair Hageman, Ranking Member Leger Fernandez, members of 
the Subcommittee, and Representative Peltola. Thank you for 
your comments this morning, Madam Chair, and Ranking Member, 
and Mr. French. They actually cover a lot of what we care to 
say.
    I am in front of you here today wearing my traditional 
tunic. The front of it is representative of Talkuna Gua Sha, 
the mountain that saved our people in the time of the Great 
Flood. I put this on to give you some sense of what we mean 
when we say we have been here since time immemorial. Our people 
have been on our land since the glaciers first came and 
glaciers receded 10,000 to 15,000 years ago. We were there at 
the time of the Great Flood 6,000 to 7,000 years ago. We have 
been there since the valley floors were formed and before the 
oldest trees ever grew. It is time immemorial.
    I want to talk to you a little bit about three concepts in 
Tlingit law. Haa Aani. Haa Aani literally translates to mean 
our land, but it is much much more than just land, it is 
talking about a place. It is talking about the mountains, the 
valleys, the rivers, the beaches, the trees, the bear, the 
deer, the salmon, the halibut, the berries, everything. 
Everything in our place is Haa Aani. This is our land.
    Another concept I want to bring up is at.oow. This tunic is 
actually the at.oow of my clan, it is owned by my clan. The 
symbols on it are owned by my clan. Other clans don't dispute 
this, they know it belongs to us. NAGPRA brings up at.oow and 
they recognize sacred objects when they are talking about 
artwork, whether it is totem poles, or blankets, or carved 
hats. But what it doesn't realize is the most fundamental 
important thing is the land is part of our at.oow. Oftentimes, 
land was paid for in blood and that is sacred to us. Our people 
are buried there, our people have lived there for generations. 
The at.oow is important.
    Another third concept I want to bring up, and I won't keep 
going, but this is an important one, too. It is called Haa 
Shuka. It is kind of a yesterday, today, and tomorrow. But what 
it is really talking about are our ancestors, all of us here 
today, and all future generations that are not born.
    And the reason I bring this up is because this fight has 
been going on for a long, long time. It was started by my 
grandparents, and my father's uncle, my father on to me today, 
and it will go on to my children and grandchildren, but we hope 
they never have to be here to testify and fight for this.
    I want to quickly run through the legislative history. In 
1867, Russia sells Alaska to the United States. In 1890, Chief 
Jakes VI hires Willoughby Clark and sends him to Washington, DC 
to lobby the President and Congress for lands improperly taken. 
In 1920, in the ANB Hall in Haines, Alaska, they pass a 
resolution to sue for lands improperly taken. In 1930, in 
Wrangell, the Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida Indian 
Tribes of Alaska are formed to sue for our land taken.
    In the 1940s, Tlingit attorney William Paul sues the United 
States and wins the case in the appeals court, but that is 
later overturned by Congress so that in the 1950s, he brings 
Tee-Hit-Ton v. United States to the Supreme Court, but 
unfortunately loses. In 1968, Tlingit and Haida settles for 
$7.5 million for lands improperly taken. All the way up to 
1971, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.
    The Southeast Tribes are discriminated against and not 
given land to the level of the other tribes in Northern Alaska 
where they received three to seven townships, and the 10 tribes 
in Southeast Alaska do not have appeal rights to appeal. And 
that is a lot of why I am here today and why we have this bill, 
because only Congress can fix this. Through the Supreme Court 
case of Tee-Hit-Ton v. United States, we have to come to 
Congress to settle this.
    And in 1972, when three of our communities realized that 
they had not been included in the bill, they appealed, only to 
find out they do not have appeal rights under the proper 
section of the law.
    So, we are only asking for half of 1 percent of our 
original homelands. It is a very, very small piece. You can 
correct this injustice. This is up to you, and we would 
appreciate your help and support with our bill.
    [Speaking Native language.] I am here to answer any 
questions you may have.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Rinehart follows:]
   Prepared Statement of Richard (Tashee) Rinehart, on Behalf of the 
              Southeast Alaska Landless Native Communities
                              on H.R. 4748

    Chair Hageman, Ranking Member Leger Fernandez, and Members of the 
Subcommittee:
    Thank you for inviting me to speak to you today regarding H.R. 
4748, the Unrecognized Southeast Alaska Native Communities Recognition 
and Compensation Act. I am here representing the Southeast Alaska 
Landless Native Communities. This legislation would redress a historic 
injustice in the context of Congress's efforts to settle aboriginal 
lands claims in Alaska. I look forward to answering any questions 
Committee Members may have about our communities, our struggle for 
justice, or this legislation.
    My name is Richard Rinehart. I am Tlingit/Raven, Kiks.adi (Frog 
clan), Gagaan Hit (Sun House), Teeyhittaan yadi (child of), and Haida. 
My Tlingit names are Du aani Kax Naalei and Tashee.
    I was born and raised in Kaachxana aakw or Wrangell, Alaska, one of 
the five ``landless'' Native communities left out of the Alaska Native 
Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (ANCSA). I was a child when ANCSA passed. 
The legislation was debated around my kitchen table. This legislation 
is deeply personal to me, as it will rectify the injustice that the 
Native people from my community--along with those from the four other 
landless communities--have faced for more than 50 years. It will return 
a tiny sliver of our ancestral homelands to our communities.
Background and Context for Legislation

    H.R. 4748, the Unrecognized Southeast Alaska Native Communities 
Recognition and Compensation Act, would redress the omission of five 
Alaska Native communities from the settlement of aboriginal land claims 
in Alaska.
    When Congress settled the land claims of the Alaska Native people 
in 1971, Congress elected to establish 12 ``regional'' Alaska Native 
Corporations and approximately 200 ``village'' and ``urban'' Alaska 
Native Corporations throughout the state. Through ANCSA, Congress 
transferred more than 44 million acres of land to the new Alaska Native 
Corporations, and these Native Corporations were directed by Congress 
to provide for the economic, social, and cultural well-being of their 
Alaska Native owners.
    For all regions of Alaska except the Southeast Alaska region, 
Native villages presumed to be eligible to establish Village 
Corporations were listed in Section 11 of ANCSA. Section 11 of ANCSA 
also included language allowing any village not listed in Section 11 to 
appeal their status to the Secretary of the Interior.
    Because the U.S. Court of Claims had previously authorized a small 
(and partial) monetary settlement for the Tlingit and Haida people of 
Southeast Alaska in 1968, Congress addressed the Southeast villages in 
a separate section of ANCSA--Section 16. Ten Southeast Alaska villages 
were listed in Section 16 and--due to the partial settlement in 1968--
each village was limited to receiving just one township (23,040 acres) 
of land. (Native communities in other regions of Alaska were authorized 
to select between 3-7 townships of land.) However, unlike Section 11, 
Section 16 did not include language authorizing any village not listed 
to appeal their status to the Secretary.
    Our five communities--the Alaska Native communities that predated 
the current municipalities of Haines, Ketchikan, Tenakee, Petersburg, 
and Wrangell--were left off the list of Native communities authorized 
to establish Alaska Native Corporations despite the fact that nearly 
3500 Alaska Native individuals were enrolled by the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs (BIA) to our communities. Three of our communities appealed to 
the Department of the Interior, but the Department concluded that 
Section 16 of ANCSA did not establish a right of appeal for Southeast 
communities. Our only recourse was to return to Congress to seek 
legislation to be included in ANCSA.
    In an attempt to understand why our five communities were left out 
of ANCSA, Congress in 1991 directed the Department of the Interior to 
produce a study examining the historical and legislative record 
relevant to each of our five communities. The Department contracted 
with the University of Alaska's Institute of Social and Economic 
Research (ISER) to produce a report. The 128-page ISER report, 
published in 1994, outlines the long history of each of our communities 
as a Native community. The report provides no policy recommendations 
but makes clear that Congress did not give a reason for leaving our 
five communities out of ANCSA.
    The Unrecognized Southeast Alaska Native Communities Recognition 
and Compensation Act would create ``urban'' Alaska Native Corporations 
for each our five communities and authorize the conveyance of one 
township (23,040 acres) of land to each, just as ANCSA in 1971 
authorized for every other Alaska Native community in Southeast Alaska.
    The five townships (115,200 acres) of land involved in this 
legislation necessarily would be withdrawn from the 17-million acre 
Tongass National Forest, which comprises most of the federal lands in 
Southeast Alaska. (Glacier Bay National Park is the only other 
significant unit of federal land in the region.)
    The fact that our five communities all are located within the 
Tongass National Forest has been a challenge for us in our efforts to 
seek redress. Our five communities appear to have been excluded from 
ANCSA because the Forest Service and the timber industry were 
historically opposed to aboriginal land claims in the Tongass. We 
briefly address this history below and we have provided a more detailed 
history as well, attached.
    For decades prior to the passage of ANCSA, the Forest Service 
opposed the recognition of traditional Indian use and aboriginal title 
in the Tongass National Forest. As late as 1954, the Forest Service 
formally recommended that all Native claims to the Tongass be 
extinguished because of continuing uncertainty affecting the timber 
industry in Southeast Alaska.\1\ Our communities all were located near 
sawmills and pulp mills in the 1960s, prior to the passage of ANCSA. 
There was a concern at that time that the Native peoples would lock up 
the land, blocking access to the timber industry. In other words, our 
communities were a serious inconvenience in the context of federal 
efforts to address aboriginal land claims in Southeast Alaska.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Robert Baker, Charles Smythe and Henry Dethloff, A New 
Frontier: Managing the National Forests in Alaska, 1970-1995 31 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the 1940s, the Tlingit leader and attorney William Paul, who was 
from Wrangell, won a short-lived legal victory pertaining to Alaska 
Native aboriginal title in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Miller 
v. United States, which ruled that Tlingit lands held by original 
Indian title could not be seized by the government without the consent 
of the Tlingit landowners and without paying just compensation. 159 F. 
2d 997 (9th Cir. 1947). Recognizing that this presented a problem for 
the Forest Service and the timber industry, Congress passed a Joint 
Resolution authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture to sell timber and 
land within the Tongass ``notwithstanding any claim of possessory 
rights'' based upon ``aboriginal occupancy or title.'' Joint Resolution 
of August 8, 1947, 61 Stat. 920, 921. A timber sale authorized pursuant 
to this authorization was challenged by the Tlingit people. The action 
ultimately resulted in the Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States 
decision, in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that Native land rights 
are subject to the doctrines of discovery and conquest, and `` 
`conquest gives a title which the Courts of the Conqueror cannot deny.' 
'' 348 U.S. 272, 280 (1955). The Court concluded that Native peoples do 
not have 5th Amendment rights to aboriginal property and that Congress, 
in its sole discretion, must decide whether or how to compensate Native 
peoples for the loss of their lands.
    The land at issue in Tee-Hit-Ton Indians involved our Tlingit 
people who settled in Wrangell, one of the five communities that is 
still seeking a settlement of its aboriginal land claims today.\2\ That 
litigation stemmed from a decision by the Forest Service to offer up 
350,000 acres of land near Wrangell for a timber sale.\3\ Ironically--
and sadly--more than 70 years later the Forest Service is still 
resisting the conveyance of land to the Native community at Wrangell 
because--as stated by the Forest Service just six weeks ago--those 
conveyances ``will affect the ability of the Forest Service to . . . 
meet[] current timber harvest goals.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Rashah McChesney, In Tlingit Land-Rights Loss, a Native 
American Rights Attorney Lays Out Injustice and Hope for the Future 
(Nov. 9, 2019).
    \3\ Id.
    \4\ See Testimony of Jacqueline Emanuel, Associate Deputy Chief, 
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service before the U.S. 
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public 
Lands, Forests, and Mining 8 (Oct. 25, 2023), available at https://
www.energy.senate.gov/services/files/100D8EEB-E0D6-4926-9FC5-
D4E32BA97BB2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It has been suggested by some that our five communities were 
excluded from ANCSA because the populations of our five communities had 
become predominantly non-Native by the time ANCSA was enacted in 1971. 
If that were true, it would be a poor excuse to deny Native communities 
a just settlement of their land claims. But it is not the case. ANCSA 
as enacted did not restrict the establishment of Alaska Native 
Corporations to communities with populations that were predominantly 
Native. Congress listed all other similarly-situated Alaska Native 
communities in Alaska, including the predominantly non-Native villages 
of Kasaan and Saxman (for which Village Corporations were established), 
the urbanized village of Nome (for which a Village Corporation was 
established), and the urbanized, predominantly non-Native communities 
of Sitka, Juneau, Kodiak, and Kenai (for which Urban Corporations were 
established). Our exclusion from ANCSA simply cannot be justified by 
ANCSA itself, its legislative history, precedential concerns, or by 
broader policy considerations relating to aboriginal land claims in the 
United States.
    We have now waited more than 50 years, and more than half of the 
original ``Landless'' shareholder population has passed away waiting 
for the equitable resolution of our omission from ANCSA. That's not 
right. In the context of a statewide effort like ANCSA, we are a small 
group. Perhaps that makes it hard for us to be heard. But nearly 3,500 
Alaska Native people--or 22 percent of total enrollment in the 
Southeast Alaska region--were enrolled by BIA to these five 
communities. Despite our losses, our community continues to grow. Our 
Landless shareholders and the descendants of our original shareholders 
together have grown to a population of 4,800.
    For more information about the history of the five landless Native 
communities, we direct your attention to two background documents, 
which are attached and briefly described below.
University of Alaska ISER Report

    In 1991, Congress instructed the Secretary of the Interior to 
investigate the exclusion of our five unrecognized communities from 
ANCSA. In turn, the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and 
BIA contracted with the University of Alaska's Institute of Social 
Economic Research (ISER) to investigate why our five communities were 
excluded from ANCSA. This research materialized into a lengthy report 
titled, ``A Study of Five Southeast Alaska Communities'' (ISER Report). 
The ISER Report provides a detailed overview of ``how the historical 
circumstances and conditions of the [five] study communities compare 
with those of the Southeast communities that were recognized under 
ANCSA.'' You will find that the ISER Report, attached, does a good job 
of detailing the history of the five unrecognized communities as 
historical Native communities.

Nov. 18, 2020 Landless Testimony before the Senate Committee on Energy 
        and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests and 
        Mining

    Following a November 18, 2020 hearing before the Senate Committee 
on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests 
and Mining on a substantially similar version of this legislation, we 
prepared lengthy written testimony that provides a thorough analysis of 
the claims of our five communities in the context of the broader Alaska 
Native land claims movement; much of our analysis summarizes the 
findings of the ISER Report. The testimony also provides answers to a 
range of questions that have been asked over time about the five 
communities and about legislation introduced on our behalf. The 
detailed testimony is attached.
Conclusion

    The Tongass National Forest is a politically sensitive place. We 
understand this. But it is also true that the Tlingit and Haida people 
have been pursuing a fair settlement of aboriginal land claims in the 
Tongass National Forest for over 100 years.
    With respect, we believe that Congress erred in omitting five of 
our communities from the list of Alaska Native communities eligible to 
form Alaska Native Corporations in 1971. The ISER Report, prepared at 
the direction of Congress, provides a more-than-adequate documentation 
of the history of our communities as historical Native communities.
    In the infamous Tee-Hit-Ton Indians decision, the U.S. Supreme 
Court held that the Tlingit and Haida claims to the land are subject to 
the doctrines of discovery and conquest, and ``conquest gives a title 
which the Courts of the Conqueror cannot deny.'' The Court concluded 
that Native peoples do not have 5th Amendment rights to aboriginal 
property and that Congress, in its sole discretion, must decide whether 
or how to compensate the Tlingit and Haida people for the loss of their 
lands. For five Alaska Native communities in Southeast Alaska, Congress 
has yet to act.

                                 ______
                                 

Questions Submitted for the Record to Richard Rinehart, CEO, Tlingit & 
                       Haida Business Corporation

Mr. Rinehart did not submit responses to the Committee by the 
appropriate deadline for inclusion in the printed record.

            Questions Submitted by Representative Westerman

    Question 1. It is understood that local community members have 
raised concerns around public access to the lands if they were to be 
conveyed to the five new Alaska Native Urban Corporations that H.R. 
4748, would allow to form.

    1a) How have you addressed these concerns?

    1b) How do you plan to address any future related concerns that may 
arise from local community members?

                                 ______
                                 
    Ms. Hageman. Thank you. And thank you for that history. It 
is very interesting to know how long these things have gone on. 
And as I said a moment ago, I think that one of the tasks that 
we have as this Committee is to try to right some of those 
wrongs, so I thank you for your testimony.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Ervin Carlson for 5 minutes.

       STATEMENT OF ERVIN CARLSON, PRESIDENT, INTERTRIBAL  
           BUFFALO COUNCIL, RAPID CITY, SOUTH DAKOTA 

    Mr. Carlson. Thank you, Madam Chair Hageman and esteemed 
members of the Indian and Insular Affairs Subcommittee. My name 
is Ervin Carlson, and I am a member of the Blackfeet Nation of 
Montana, and I serve as the President of the InterTribal 
Buffalo Council, ITBC.
    I appreciate this opportunity to present testimony to the 
members of this Committee. I am here today to present testimony 
on H.R. 6368, the Indian Buffalo Management Act, IBMA, and 
encourage passage of this legislation to create a tribal 
buffalo restoration and management program within the 
Department of the Interior.
    I want to express my appreciation to Congressman Doug 
LaMalfa as the primary sponsor of this bill, to Congressmen 
Cole and Obernolte, as well as to Congresswomen Peltola and 
Torres for their co-sponsorship. I must also express my thanks 
and admiration to the late Congressman Don Young, the Dean of 
the House, and a hero to the American Indian and Alaska Native 
people on so many issues, including the passage of this 
legislation through the House in the last Congress. We should 
pass this bill because the Indian people need it, but also as a 
tribute to our dear friend, Don Young, as a lasting testament 
to his legacy.
    Finally, we are so pleased to see this legislation endorsed 
by the National Wildlife Federation, the Wildlife Conservation 
Society, the World Wildlife Fund, the Nature Conservancy, the 
National Congress of American Indians, and the National Bison 
Association, among other Indian and conservation organizations 
that we have out there.
    As many as 60 million buffalo once roamed these lands. The 
Indian and the buffalo co-existed, and the sacred spiritual 
relationship developed. To this day, you will hear many Indian 
people refer to buffalo as my relative. Buffalo provided food, 
shelter, essential tools, and clothing, and became an important 
component of Indian culture and religion.
    With the westward expansion combined with philosophy of 
manifest destiny took root in this country, buffalo hunters 
began first killing buffalo by the tens of thousands. By the 
early 1900s, less than 500 buffalo remained. Indians lost their 
primary food source, cultural practices, and independence. 
Sitting Bull, the great and eloquent Sioux Chief, once said, 
``A cold wind blew on the prairie on the day the last buffalo 
fell. A death wind for my people.''
    Fast-forwarding to 1991 when approximately 10 tribes came 
together and formed the InterTribal Buffalo Council for the 
purpose of re-establishing buffalo herds on our lands. An 
important supporter was Senator Conrad Burns of Montana who 
used his position on the Appropriations Committee to help 
secure funding for the ITBC. Unfortunately, in succeeding 
years, that funding has been very minimal and left to the whims 
of whoever happened to be in control of the BIA in any given 
year.
    Today, our organization has 84 Tribal Nations in 21 states. 
More tribes are joining every year, and I think we will have 
one joining after today. These tribes want herds for various 
reasons ranging from food security and a source of protein to 
job creation, but perhaps must fundamentally for cultural 
purposes.
    I wish you could see what happens when we take a trailer 
load of buffalo to an Indian reservation that has had no 
buffalo for over a century. When we back that trailer up, open 
the gate, and release those magnificent animals to a pasture, 
you can look around and see grown men, Indian men and women, in 
tears. You will hear yells of joy, elders singing buffalo songs 
that have never been heard by their children or grandchildren. 
It is the most emotional cultural reawakening I have ever seen.
    H.R. 6368, the Indian Buffalo Management Act will create a 
program in the Bureau of Indian Affairs to assist tribes in re-
establishing buffalo herds on Indian reservation lands. It will 
also direct the Secretary to consult with tribes on matters 
affecting buffalo policy on Federal lands. We hope it will lead 
to funding so we can increase buffalo herd development grants. 
This can help with on-reservation buffalo-related jobs and 
infrastructure, including water development, range management, 
fence construction and repair, construction of corrals, and 
handling equipment, and pay for supplemental fee.
    The IBMA will allow tribes to reintroduce buffalo into the 
diets of our people to address health issues. My submitted 
testimony provides much more detail on how the enactment of 
this legislation will benefit tribes in helping us bring back 
our sacred buffalo herds.
    This is another bill to correct the wrong. I urge the 
enactment of this legislation, and I thank you for being here 
today.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Carlson follows:]
  Prepared Statement of Ervin Carlson, President, InterTribal Buffalo 
                                Council
                              on H.R. 6368

    INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
    Chairman Hageman and esteemed members of the Indian and Insular 
Affairs Subcommittee, my name is Ervin Carlson, and I am a member of 
the Blackfeet Nation of Montana and serve as the President of the 
InterTribal Buffalo Council (ITBC). Please accept my sincere 
appreciation for this opportunity to present testimony to the members 
of this committee.
    I am here today to present testimony on H.R. 6368, the Indian 
Buffalo Management Act (IBMA), and encourage passage of this 
legislation to create a Tribal buffalo restoration and management 
program within the Department of Interior. I also want to express our 
deep appreciation to Congressman Doug LaMalfa as the prime sponsor of 
this bill, to Congressmen Cole, and Obernolte as well as to 
Congresswomen Peltola and Torres for their co-sponsorship. We 
understand the LaMalfa and Peltola offices are reaching out to other 
offices to also co-sponsor and for that we extend our further 
appreciation. While he is no longer with us, I must also express my 
thanks and admiration to the late Congressman Don Young, the Dean of 
the House, and a hero to the American Indian and Alaska Native people 
on so many issues including the passage of this legislation through the 
House in the last Congress. We should pass this bill because the Indian 
people need it but also as a tribute to our dear friend Don Young as a 
lasting testament to his legacy. Finally, I wish to thank Chair Hageman 
for taking time in her busy schedule to meet with me the last time I 
was here in DC. We are also most pleased to see this legislation 
endorsed by the National Wildlife Federation, the Wildlife Conservation 
Society, the World Wildlife Fund, the Nature Conservancy, the National 
Congress of American Indians and the National Bison Association, among 
others.
    Historical records indicate that in the 1840s the buffalo 
population in North America was estimated at 30 million and, at its 
peak, experts believe there may have as many as 60 million buffalo 
across the vast landscape of what would become the United States. At 
the time of Christopher Columbus' arrival in the New World, somewhere 
between 7 to 18 million American Indians populated North America. 
During these early years, Indians and buffalo successfully co-existed 
and, a sacred, spiritual relationship developed between them. Indians 
were dependent on buffalo for food, shelter, essential tools and 
clothing, and the buffalo became an integral component of Indian 
culture and religion. To this day, you will hear many Indian people 
refer to a buffalo as ``my relative.''
    As Indians were forced onto reservations, buffalo were slaughtered 
by the thousands. Much of the slaughter was undertaken by the greed of 
the buffalo hunters who stripped the buffalo for its hide as the 
factories of the east could not get enough. More often than not, the 
meat was not even harvested, while Indians forced onto reservations 
could have used every ounce of it. Imagine what our ancestors must have 
thought about allowing all that protein to simply rot on the prairie. 
We must be honest and point out that the U.S. military believed that if 
the buffalo could be eliminated, the ``Indian problem'' in America 
could be solved. A US military leader who was deeply involved in the 
so-called Indian Wars of the Great Plains brutally stated, ``If I could 
learn that every buffalo in the northern herd were killed, I would be 
glad . . . The destruction of the herd would do more to keep Indians 
quiet than anything else that could happen.'' The greed of the buffalo 
hunters and the strategy of the government were successful and, in the 
last three to four decades of the 1800s literally tens of millions of 
buffalo were slaughtered resulting in less than 500 buffalo remaining 
at the turn of the century. With the demise of the buffalo and the 
confinement of Indian Tribes to reservation lands, Indians lost their 
primary food source, lifestyle, and independence. Sitting Bull, the 
great and eloquent Sioux Chief said, ``A cold wind blew on the prairie 
on the day the last buffalo fell. A death wind for my people.''
    By the early 1900s, a growing number of Americans realized the 
error of trying to eliminate the buffalo. President Teddy Roosevelt 
played a significant role in buffalo conservation efforts in the early 
1900s and then conservation began on a wider scale in the mid-1900s. By 
1990, approximately 25,000 buffalo were held in public herds and 
approximately 250,000 buffalo were in private herds. A small number of 
Indian Tribes had also established small herds on Tribal lands. In 
1991, approximately 10 Indian Tribes, committed to buffalo restoration 
with approximately 1,500 buffalo among them, organized the ITBC and 
approached Congress for federal funding. An early supporter was Senator 
Conrad Burns of Montana. In 1992, ITBC began receiving federal funding 
through Congressional earmarks. Sometimes we were included in the 
President's budget and other times supported administratively but only 
at the discretion of whomever was in a senior position at the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs in any given year. With very small appropriations, and 
funding that was never ensured from one year to the next, ITBC has 
nonetheless assisted many Tribes to restore buffalo, enhance existing 
herds and provide necessary technical assistance.
    In an effort to formalize as a national Indian organization, ITBC 
petitioned for and was granted a federal charter in 2009 under Section 
17 of the Indian Reorganization Act. Today, ITBC is comprised of 84 
federally recognized Indian Tribes in twenty-one (21) states with 
sixty-four (64) buffalo herds, including some that are quite small. In 
just the last year six more tribes have passed resolutions and 
requested membership including the Bays Mills Indian Community and the 
Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa both of Michigan, the 
Eastern Shawnee Tribe, the Comanche Nation and the Pawnee Nation, all 
of Oklahoma, and the Miccosukee Tribe of Florida. The member tribes of 
the ITBC currently have a combined population nearing one million 
tribal members.
    For Indian Tribes, the restoration of buffalo to Tribal lands 
signifies much more than simply conservation of the national mammal. 
Tribes enter buffalo restoration efforts to counteract the near 
extinction of buffalo that was analogous to the tragic history of 
American Indians in this country. Today's resurgence of buffalo on 
Tribal lands, largely through the efforts of ITBC, signifies the 
survival of the revered Tribal buffalo culture as well as the survival 
of American Indians and their culture.
FUNDING HISTORY

    As indicated above, ITBC has received appropriated funding since 
1992 in varying amounts and through various methods including the 
President's budget, Congressional earmarks, or administrative action. 
ITBC has approached Congress annually for funding, but actual 
allocations of funding awards have been at the discretion of the Bureau 
of Indian Affairs from various line items. However, the annual 
Congressional appropriation to ITBC does illustrate long-standing 
Congressional support and provides evidence that buffalo restoration 
and management is not a limited or one-time project but is more akin to 
a recurring program. Presently, ITBC enters into annual Indian Self 
Determination and Education Assistance Act contracts with the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs for Tribal buffalo restoration and management. However, 
this contractual relationship remains tenuous without an actual 
statutorily authorized buffalo program within the BIA and at times BIA 
officials have recommended that we seek a Congressional authorization 
for this program.
FEDERAL COMMITMENT TO TRADITIONAL FOOD SOURCES

    Article XI of the 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie guarantees Tribes 
access to buffalo ``so long as buffalo may range.'' The Tribes 
considered this language as a perpetual guarantee. Unfortunately, like 
many other treaty provisions, the Federal Government failed to live up 
to this promise. Congressional adoption of the IBMA now provides an 
opportunity for the Federal government to honor a commitment to 
American Indians to access buffalo, similar to the commitment to Tribal 
fish commissions. Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court examined the 1868 
Fort Laramie Treaty and upheld Tribal hunting rights in the Herrera 
decision.
    The Federal government has had a long-standing and justifiable 
commitment to Tribal fish commissions and treaty fishing rights 
following the well-known Boldt decision. That federal district court 
case gave the fishing Tribes co-management authority over salmon with 
the States, access to half of the returning salmon and steelhead each 
year and declared the security of Indian fishing rights was a trust 
obligation of the United States. This case stands for the proposition 
that all American Indians have a right to their traditional foods, and 
therefore, this ruling supports a Federal trust responsibility to 
return buffalo to Tribes, in the same manner the Federal government has 
protected the security of Tribes to access fish. It would be helpful if 
ITBC and the buffalo tribes had some degree of parity, funding-wise, 
relative to the tribal fish commissions and their tribes.
INDIAN BUFFALO MANAGEMENT ACT

    Adoption of the Indian Buffalo Management Act will create a program 
within the Bureau of Indian Affairs that will truly help our Tribes. 
While funding will depend on annual appropriations, the IBMA should 
create some degree of parity with other Tribal wildlife programs. 
Additionally, the IBMA will solidify the contractual relationship 
between the BIA and ITBC, or individual Tribes should they choose to 
seek an ISDEAA contract. Hopefully this will eliminate our present 
situation where funding is so uncertain. Without funding, many current 
buffalo herds would undergo a devastating impact and possibly 
liquidation. Years of effort to restore and develop herds could be lost 
as many ITBC Tribes have few alternate resources to assist with buffalo 
programs.
    The IBMA will allow ITBC to provide more meaningful Tribal Herd 
Development Grants to create the necessary infrastructure to provide 
buffalo to a larger segment of the Indian community. This in turn will 
lead to greater self-determination and food-sovereignty opportunities 
for Tribes through production of their own traditional foods and 
creation of economic opportunities. An expansion of the Herd 
Development Grants will increase on-reservation buffalo related jobs 
and infrastructure development including water development, range 
management, fence construction and repair, construction of corrals, and 
handling equipment, and will help pay for supplemental feed. Increased 
herd development grants will further allow Tribes to market buffalo for 
economic development through branding, advertising, and developing 
enough product to meet consumer demands. Tribes, unlike off-reservation 
agriculture producers, have limited access to traditional financing due 
to limitations of utilizing Tribal trust land for collateral. Thus, 
without enhanced Herd Development Grants, Tribes remain at a 
disadvantage in herd expansion and marketing.
    The Indian Buffalo Management Act will enhance ITBC's ability to 
serve as a meaningful partner to Federal agencies involved in buffalo 
management. ITBC collaborates with the National Park Service, the U.S. 
Forest Service, and the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 
on buffalo management issues. However, this involvement is limited by a 
scarcity in resources. The IBMA will enhance population management 
through roundups and distribution of surplus buffalo to Tribes from the 
Badlands, Theodore Roosevelt, Grand Canyon, Yellowstone and Wind Cave 
National Parks. Translocation of surplus buffalo from those parks 
(including quarantine at Yellowstone) to Tribes prevents needless 
slaughter when the parks reach their carrying capacity and fulfills 
restoration objectives. However, ITBC and Tribal participation is often 
limited due to a lack of resources for transport.
    The IBMA will enhance the objective to reintroduce buffalo into the 
diets of Indian populations to prevent and treat diet related diseases 
including diabetes which is prevalent. An increase in funding will 
allow Tribes to have sufficient product for cultural purposes, product 
to sell at reasonable costs for Tribal members and product to market 
hopefully on a larger scale. Further, enhanced funding will allow ITBC 
to develop concrete evidence of health benefits that will facilitate 
ITBC partnerships with health programs to prevent and treat diet 
related diseases in Native populations. We have built one trailer for 
cultural harvest and have funding for a second trailer. The first 
trailer has been very well received by Indian people on whose 
reservations we have taken it. It is providing a source of protein and 
connecting Indians people to cultural and harvest practices that in 
some cases had almost disappeared with the demise of the buffalo.
    The IBMA will reinforce on-going technical services from ITBC to 
Tribes, which are currently provided by a very limited staff of three 
people, for wildlife management, ecological management, range 
management, buffalo health, cultural practices, and economic 
development. Adoption of the IBMA will allow ITBC to enhance current 
training sessions (national and regional) designed to enhance Tribal 
buffalo handling and management.
    Additionally, the IBMA will support ITBC staff educational 
presentations to school-age youth, tribal buffalo managers, and others. 
The topics of these presentations range from buffalo restoration, 
conservation efforts, and the historical, cultural relationship between 
buffalo and American Indians. Current funding limits outreach, 
educational efforts, and staff training.
    Indian buffalo herds are grass-fed and, hormone and antibiotic 
free. This creates a lean final product that would help fill a niche in 
meat production markets. ITBC strives to develop these markets for 
buffalo meat and products for interested member-Tribes at the local and 
national level. The IBMA would facilitate creation a centralized herd--
made from the member-Tribes' buffalo--in a centralized location to 
create a steady source of buffalo for markets. This herd could also be 
used to exchange buffalo among the member-Tribes to enhance each herd's 
genetic diversity.
    When Don Young first introduced the legislation, a couple of 
offices asked us to meet with representatives of the cattle industry to 
see if they had concerns. As a result of those meetings, we made a 
number of changes to the legislation and were pleased that the industry 
then told us and those congressional offices that their concerns had 
been met. Further changes have been made to the bill this year to make 
it consistent with the Rules of the House of Representatives adopted at 
the beginning of the 118th Congress.
CONCLUSION

    H.R. 5153, the Indian Buffalo Management Act, will further efforts 
to restore buffalo to Tribes on a broader scale and to establish a 
Tribal buffalo industry for job creation and new revenue for Tribal 
economies. ITBC ultimately hopes to restore Tribal herds large enough 
to support local Tribal health needs and achieve economically self-
sufficient herds.
    ITBC and its member Tribes are appreciative of past and current 
support from Congress and the Administration. However, we urge the 
Committee to adopt the IBMA to create a buffalo restoration program and 
demonstrate Congressional commitment to Tribes to access this critical, 
traditional food source.
    I would like to thank this Committee for the opportunity to present 
testimony and I invite you to visit ITBC Tribal buffalo projects and 
experience firsthand their successes. The ITBC leadership and staff 
would be pleased to respond to any questions Committee members of staff 
may have.

                                 ______
                                 
    Questions Submitted for the Record to Ervin Carlson, President, 
                      InterTribal Buffalo Council

Mr. Carlson did not submit responses to the Committee by the 
appropriate deadline for inclusion in the printed record.

            Questions Submitted by Representative Westerman

    Question 1. It is understood that the InterTribal Buffalo Council 
has constructed two cultural harvest trailers.

    1a) Can you please explain how these trailers are being used?

    1b) Can you provide details on the benefits of these trailers?

                                 ______
                                 

    Ms. Hageman. Thank you for being here, and I thank you for 
your testimony.
    The Chair will now recognize Members for 5 minutes of 
questions beginning with myself.
    Mr. Freihage, I would like to begin with you and with 
reference to H.R. 4524. In your testimony, you mentioned that 
this bill can be a means to strengthen public safety in Indian 
Country. Can you expand on that and how exactly the Department 
thinks that this bill will improve public safety?
    Mr. Freihage. I think it will improve public safety 
starting with streamlining the process to make it easier to 
recognize tribal law enforcement. It is ensuring the tribes 
have a process that is similar to what BIA does. That will 
speed up the process to ensure they have law enforcement who 
can be on the streets supporting public safety.
    Second, as noted, just the issue of pay and benefits is 
really critical in terms of competing in a really tough market. 
There are law enforcement shortages all over the country. Every 
jurisdiction deals with it. By increasing the benefits that 
tribal law enforcement can offer to their officers, especially 
for things such as pension and retirement, that is going to 
help with their ability to compete with other employers.
    Ms. Hageman. I thank you for that. And then I also want to 
ask you a question about H.R. 6443. We have heard from the 
Jamul tribal leadership that one of the one of the parcels at 
issue within that particular bill has been pending in the 
administrative land into trust process at the Bureau since 
August 2015. That seems like an enormous amount of time. Is 
that the usual amount of time for parcels to be waiting to be 
placed into trust and what could be done to speed up this 
process?
    Mr. Freihage. Yes, it will obviously depend across 
different applications. I believe when the Administration 
started, the average time was close to 3 years for the fee-to-
trust. Right now, we are at about a 2-year level, and the goal 
is to get down to 1 year. The reason that it can be slow can be 
related to things such as litigation, the cost of title 
insurance for tribes can sometimes be challenging, sometimes 
the cost-related environmental reviews.
    So, the actions we are taking which have led to some 
progress to date and hopefully continued progress include a 
couple of things. One is we are prioritizing filling vacancies 
for realty positions. And in addition to that, extra funding 
for more realty positions would be helpful. The President's 
Fiscal Year 2024 budget requested additional funding for realty 
staff.
    But we are also taking management actions. One of them is 
proposed amendments to the 151 rule for fee-to-trust which 
includes changes such as bringing some surveying activities 
from BLM back to BIA so that you have fewer hand-offs in the 
process. By having it with one organization we hope that 
streamlines it. Similarly, our trust services team has 
developed a tracker for every fee-to-trust application so that 
all Indian Affairs leadership can track that and share 
compliance and hold people accountable, and there is also an 
external portal so that tribal leaders can see where their 
application is, so that enables their ability to ask questions.
    So, we are hoping these and some other efforts will 
continue to bring that time down.
    Ms. Hageman. And I encourage you to continue with those 
types of actions because I think that this is incredibly 
important that we speed up that process for our tribes around 
the country.
    Mr. Michael Erickson, I would like to ask you a question. 
In your testimony, you mentioned the financial cost that the 
Colville Tribe pays to recruit and train officers so that these 
officers are able to conduct patrols on their own. When an 
officer that you pay to train leaves, what kind of secondary 
budget impact does this have on the Tribe?
    Mr. Erickson. Thank you for that question. Essentially it 
is just money that you are, I wouldn't say throwing down the 
drain, but they go to some other municipality, so you just have 
to reinvest that money again. Hence, our budget goes up, and a 
lot of those end up being travel funds we don't get otherwise, 
so it is just when you continue to have to reinvest in new 
employees, this recruitment and retention with this new bill 
hopefully keeps those employees around so we are not just 
training them up.
    Like Congressman Newhouse mentioned, we have really well-
trained police officers that end up going to these other 
agencies because they are so well-trained and they have all the 
money we invested into them, so I think it is just costlier. 
Then you have a new recruit come in and have to reinvest that 
money.
    Ms. Hageman. Well, I hope that we can avoid that by passing 
this legislation and giving you some additional tools to retain 
your officers.
    Ms. Pinto, I am running out of time, but I just want to 
quickly ask you, what would it mean to your tribal members to 
be able to return to their community and have services 
available to them there?
    Ms. Pinto. Thank you for the question, Madam Chair. It 
would mean everything. It would mean survival, it would mean 
continuing our culture and traditions, it would mean our elders 
having a place to come back to, to practice in language 
revitalization. It would mean the world to us.
    And I know time is of the essence here and you want to do 
the right thing. I feel that I am hurrying and my Council is 
hurrying. I brought an elder here and we want this done, we 
want the wrongs of the past to be corrected, as you continue to 
state, and I appreciate that so much.
    It would mean our survival and continued existence. Thank 
you very much.
    Ms. Hageman. Well, thank you for that.
    The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member, Ms. Leger 
Fernandez, for 5 minutes of questioning.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you, witnesses. And may I say, 
the testimony was so powerful, so very powerful, and the themes 
that you played, the need to restore the land for everything 
that it means, which you beautifully highlighted what it means. 
The idea that time immemorial is not simply two words, they are 
when the valleys were formed. Very, very powerful.
    The need to reinvigorate, reinvigorate, what a beautiful 
word, about what getting the land and having it as yours would 
mean for culture and community. The need to respect the safety 
of community members, and that without this we are 
disrespecting the need for that safety. And to restore those 
buffalo who we know were destroyed because there was a desire 
to destroy the Native people. So, thank you, it was very, very 
powerful.
    I hope I say this right. Haa Aani. Thank you for that. And 
I think when we look about the need to restore the Haa Aani, 
that we are talking about a very small portion of the 
aboriginal lands of the five communities. I don't want to call 
it the land list. Those were your lands, so you are not the 
land list, it is your Haa Aani taken from you.
    Can you just describe to us, so we have that concept of how 
much was the aboriginal lands and how much of that are you 
seeking to get restored, Mr. Rinehart?
    Mr. Rinehart. Thank you for the question, Ranking Member 
Leger Fernandez. We are talking about half of 1 percent, and to 
just try to give some context, the Tongass National Forest is a 
little over 17 million acres, it is roughly the size of West 
Virginia. And then if you throw in Glacier Bay National Park 
and other properties around Southeastern Alaska, we are talking 
about over 20 million acres.
    115,000 acres total for the five communities would be 
smaller than a small county in West Virginia. You could walk 
across 115,000 acres in a relatively short period of time, but 
it would take you hours and hours to drive around 20 million 
acres. It is really just a very, very small, small piece.
    And that is hard for a lot of people to get that 
perspective of what we are talking about here, that we are only 
asking for a little tiny bit of our land. And, unfortunately, a 
lot of our land has been taken away and it has been taken up 
over the last 50 years by the city in boroughs, by the state of 
Alaska, put into conservation for wilderness areas or special 
use districts, and we are not touching any of that. So, we have 
been pushed further and further away and have less and less 
choice as time goes by. Every year that goes by, there is less 
land available to select.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you. And I think that does give 
us the picture.
    Mr. French, I know that you have those other 17 million 
other acres that you are going to need to manage, so what would 
your answer be to whether or not you think that this transfer 
would make sense given the small amount of land, and are you 
going to still be able to manage the rest of those 17 million 
acres?
    Mr. French. Yes, thank you. Of course, I think this is 
critically important. We recognize and support that we should 
be restoring these lands. It is a very, very small amount.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you.
    Mr. French. Does it have implications to our management? 
Sure, but that doesn't change the right and wrong of doing 
this.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. And that is what Federal agencies are 
supposed to be doing, right? It is not static. We need to not 
be worried about change but say some change needs to be 
welcomed and brought in.
    Chairman Erickson, thank you so very much for coming in and 
describing what does it mean on the ground. And I think that 
this vacancy rate, like what happens when something happens? I 
think you said, was it three officers at a time? So, that means 
that if there are emergencies in two different parts of your 
community, how does a call get made as to who gets taken care 
of and who doesn't?
    Mr. Erickson. Thank you for the question. You end up with 
safety issues, too, for our officers. Response time could be 30 
minutes to an hour, hour-and-a-half from one side of the 
reservation to the other. Our reservation is a little larger 
than Delaware, just as example for everyone. So, the response 
time, officer safety, and our tribal member safety, if 
something is going on, like domestic violence or whatever it 
may be, that leads to the officer having no backup as well. So, 
recruiting and retaining officers, we are about two-thirds our 
total police force right now. If we get fully staffed, that 
helps with safety for everybody.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Yes, thank you so very much. And my 
time has expired. Thank you for bringing it to light and giving 
visual to what you are all facing.
    With that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon [presiding]. Thank you, Ranking Member 
Leger Fernandez. I will recognize myself for the next 5 
minutes. And thank you all the witnesses for coming here today.
    My first question will be for the Chairwoman of the Jamul 
Indian Village. Chairwoman Pinto, in your testimony, you 
mentioned the plans the Tribe has for the parcels that will be 
taken into trust, including building housing for tribal 
members. My question will be, what will having a larger land 
base mean to the Tribe and how will this promote homeownership 
and community?
    Ms. Pinto. I appreciate the question, Madam Chair. 
Currently, right now, my members are scattered throughout the 
San Diego area and have been unable to live in community 
together for 18 years. This will mean for us to be able to 
revitalize our community, reinvigorate our culture, be able to 
borrow sugar from one another. I don't eat sugar, but the rest 
of the Council does.
    COVID actually amplified the need for our social 
gatherings, our cultural gatherings, and the need to be next to 
one another because we can certainly feel it now. And as you 
may be aware, San Diego is super, super expensive, so we need 
to have this land taken into trust in order to build homes for 
our people, for stability, to exercise our sovereignty, protect 
our culture.
    Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Chairwoman Pinto.
    My question will now be to Chairman Erickson. In your 
testimony, you mentioned that the Colville Tribe currently has 
8 tribal officer vacancies out of a total staff of 29 officers. 
Being in a rural community, what kind of challenges does this 
present to the public safety of your reservation?
    Mr. Erickson. Thank you for that question. It creates a lot 
of issues with safety for our membership, safety for our 
officers. Also, if something happens with one of those 
individuals, where do they go? We had an incident last year, a 
murder, where the response time was not very quick, and 
catching those suspects, we had officers get injured. Luckily, 
we had a lot of help with other municipalities after the 
incident, but it creates just a lot of issues with safety for 
our officers, safety for our membership.
    Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. OK, thank you. Last month, this 
Committee heard testimony from two Washington State tribes that 
in recent years the Washington State Legislature has made it 
difficult for state and local law officers to make arrests for 
drug possession and has instead required that these offenders 
be diverted to treatment multiple times before they can be 
arrested. What kind of impact have these policies had on your 
reservation?
    Mr. Erickson. Because of the state and local law 
enforcement in our area, they have not been allowed to enforce 
drug possession laws with arrest. This activity bleeds over 
onto the Colville Reservation and we end up being the ones that 
have to deal with it. Tribal police forces are having to deal 
with an influx of drug-related offenses because our neighboring 
jurisdictions, until very recently, have not been able to make 
the arrest for drug possessions.
    I will also just add that a lot of the drug dealers seem to 
find the reservation as like a safe haven where we can't end up 
prosecuting them if they are on fee land and they are not on 
tribal, so we are trying to get some of these things corrected 
as we move forward with other stuff. But that is one of the big 
things, there seems to be an influx onto the reservation. I 
think every reservation struggles with something similar, when 
I have talked to other tribal leaders.
    Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Chairman, for your answer.
    With that, I yield back. And now I will recognize Mrs. 
Peltola from Alaska for her 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Peltola. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    I would like to ask Mr. French and Tashee some questions, 
and I think I will start with you, Tashee Rinehart. You 
described the ways in which you and other community members 
have worked with the five communities of the landless tribes in 
order to address concerns that they have regarding the bill, 
and I wondered if you could speak more to that?
    Mr. Rinehart. Thank you, Congresswoman Peltola. The 
reference you make I believe is with the communities of 
Ketchikan, Wrangell, Petersburg, Haines, and Tenakee. And we 
have met dozens and dozens of times with representatives from 
those towns, we are from those towns, and the primary concern 
that came up over and over again was access. People were 
worried about can I still go pick berries in my favorite 
blueberry bush, can I fish from my favorite fishing stream, can 
I camp where I like to camp, can I hunt where I like to hunt, 
do I have access for subsistence use.
    The bill, as it is presented, has I think a little over six 
pages on access, and easements, and guarantees in perpetuity 
that people will continue to have access for recreational, 
hunting, fishing, subsistence uses, and that is in this 
legislation, and that makes this differ from ANCSA back in 1971 
where those provisions were not there.
    Mrs. Peltola. Thank you. And as just a little follow-up, 
have your organizations been working with national and local 
environmental groups?
    Mr. Rinehart. Thank you again for that question. We have 
met dozens and dozens of times. Primarily, we started with the 
SEACC, the Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, and it took a 
long time for us to kind of sit and talk back and forth 
listening to each other and for them to understand that this 
really is not about logging, which is their main worry and 
concern, that this is really about social justice and returning 
land back to its rightful owners.
    And they understand something of Native stewardship. They 
also understand they can't say, and I don't just mean SEACC 
when I say they, excuse me, I mean the environmental 
conservation community. And they realize on one side they can't 
say that they are supportive of Natives and tribal governments 
for backing some of the things that they are after and some of 
their goals and objectives, and then on the other hand not 
support this. So, I think they have all come around a long way.
    Most recently, there was a letter of support from the 
Wilderness Society with over a million members, and they didn't 
just come out and support, they came out in very strong support 
and apologized for their past positions.
    Mrs. Peltola. I want to add to your comments. Wrangell, one 
of our Southeast communities, experienced a terrible mudslide/
landslide, and they lost a number of lives, and folks from 
their municipal government came in last week to DC. They had 
had a trip planned; they weren't sure if they were going to 
come. They did come, and I want to say they were saying very 
good things behind your back about the work that the tribe in 
Wrangell has done, they were instrumental in helping with the 
emergency afterwards and making sure there was a disaster 
declaration and just helpful in every way.
    So, I think that is a really good reflection of the tribes 
that we are talking about in these five landless communities. 
And I wonder if you could just explain briefly how long you 
have been working on this issue.
    Mr. Rinehart. Thank you for that. Wrangell is a very, very 
strong community. They recently lost a whole family, a mother 
who grew up there, the father, teenage daughter in high school, 
and two elementary school children, and then there was at least 
one other person missing. So, it was very sad, but the whole 
community comes together very strong and supports each other.
    I grew up in that community. I grew up where one of our 
leaders, really the father of ANCSA, William Paul, Sr., the one 
that brought suit for Tee-Hit-Ton v. United States, was my 
father's uncle. And I grew up with him coming to our house and 
listening to them argue about land claims when I was a child. I 
promised my father on his deathbed, literally, that I would 
fight, and I would continue this fight.
    Part of what I was explaining when I was explaining earlier 
about Haa Shuka, the past, the present, and the future, goes 
back to William Paul in his fight, clear back into the 1930s 
when they formed the Central Council of Tlingit and Haida 
Indian Tribes of Alaska in front of the ANB Hall in Wrangell on 
a winter day, kind of dark, windy, wet, Peter Simpson looks at 
William Paul and says, Willie, whose land is this. And he says, 
it is ours. He said, whose land is it. It is our land. Then 
fight for it. And William Paul took that fight, took it 
serious, and took it to his deathbed.
    Haa Shuka has to do with recognizing my grandmother, Gagee 
and my granddaughter who carries her name, Gagee, into the 
future. It has to do with recognizing my father, Yakook 
Ravenbox. I am talking about the box of daylight story. It has 
to do with Yakook my father and the promise I made him, and 
Yakook my grandson who carries that name today. And it has to 
do with this fight.
    I am trying to explain to you this is something that has 
been my whole life. I am 64 years old. I was 12 years old when 
ANCSA passed, and I am still here fighting this today, and I 
don't want my son, Gushplain or my grandchildren to have to 
come fight this. We need you to pass this, please.
    Mrs. Peltola. Thank you. Madam Chair, I know I am just over 
my time, but I am going to forego the question to Mr. French 
because it was touched on a moment ago, but I do want to thank 
Mr. Carlson for his recognition of Congressman Young, and we 
know that your people are made of buffalo, and we know that 
every part of that buffalo is sacred, the bone marrow, the 
bone, I know that you eat everything, the cartilage, 
everything. So, I just want to thank you for the work that you 
are doing on behalf of your people.
    Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you to the sponsor of the bill, 
H.R. 4748. And, Mrs. Peltola, your time has expired. We will 
now recognize Mr. LaMalfa for 5 minutes to speak on his 
legislation, H.R. 6368.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOUG LaMALFA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
             CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Madam Chair. My apologies for 
simultaneous committees I was in that kept me out of here early 
on here, so anyway, I was able to get my stuff done there and 
do something right today, so I appreciate your indulgence.
    I did want to speak on H.R. 6368, the Indian Buffalo 
Management Act, and I am glad to work on that with Mrs. 
Peltola, and I was also picking up the pieces from our great 
friend, Don Young, who carried it previously.
    As we know, the American Bison has had an amazing place in 
our country's history, and it is certainly a complicated 
history as well. Our national mammal once roamed from east of 
the Mississippi well into the Western United States and more 
until the 1880s, then they were hunted from an estimated 
population of somewhere between 30 and 60 million down to under 
1,000. The last herds of bison only existed in Yellowstone.
    But through a lot of great efforts, they have rebounded. 
Many private citizens under the Lacey Act and especially Native 
American tribes, many of whom are now members of the 
InterTribal Buffalo Council. The Department of the Interior and 
the Forest Service already carry out some buffalo habitat 
programs, including transfers of their surplus bison to private 
owners and to tribes, but it is an ad hoc program that without 
congressional authorization, could create problems that our 
witnesses have been discussing here today.
    Our bill would seek to create a bison and bison habitat 
management program at the Department of the Interior and grant 
them authority to transfer surplus bison as well. It includes 
substantial protections for state and local landowners and 
ranchers to protect their existing herds. This legislation will 
solidify the relationship between Interior and the tribes for 
the management of bison herds while allowing tribes to pursue 
new commercial offerings for bison products.
    So, Madam Chairwoman, from the doldrums of less than 1,000, 
the American Bison has rebounded so far to around 250,000 
today. I look forward to engaging in this ongoing effort and 
continuing our work to restore the American Bison with 
continuing responsible land management and providing new 
economic markets to our tribes.
    Seeing I have a little bit of time here under my 5 minutes, 
I think I would launch into a question to the President of the 
InterTribal Buffalo Council, Ervin Carlson. You have seen that 
the Council faces a lack of a formal restoration program at the 
Department of the Interior, so could you speak more about how a 
formal program can help give financial security and more 
dexterity to maintaining and starting even new tribal buffalo 
herds?
    Mr. Carlson. Thank you, Congressman LaMalfa. Creating a 
permanent funding within the Department of the Interior would 
help. Many years we have been here just at the whim, I guess, 
of whatever funding there is available for the program coming 
from different parts within the Interior and never knowing if 
it is going to be solidified or be there every year. We have to 
work with that as to the tribes that are asking for funding to 
help their operations.
    So, creating that funding there or that program within the 
Interior, making that permanent, would help us to increase 
hopefully in knowing that every year we do have that funding.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Stability.
    Mr. Carlson. The stability is really what we need there to 
keep the program ongoing, as right now we are up to 84 tribes. 
Every year, we have three or four tribes joining, and with the 
funding that we do have and don't know if we are going to have 
it, that they are asking for funding to build their programs.
    Mr. LaMalfa. You are at 84 members, that leads to my next 
question. What does the growth say in the last few years? How 
long has the Council been around or what has your growth been 
last----
    Mr. Carlson. We have been in existence since 1992. Started 
with 10 tribes. Throughout the years, we have grown now to 84 
tribes. There is a tribe sitting here that is going to talk to 
us, join right again.
    Mr. LaMalfa. So, there is a lot of interest because that is 
what the growth is and being part of this is a possibility.
    Mr. Carlson. It is just, the interest is there, the need is 
there. Every year, we are having three to six tribes that are 
joining.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Great. All right, I will try to follow up with 
another question a little bit later, on what are the 
considerations tribes are looking at if they were starting 
their own herd.
    I will yield for now. We will come back to that. Thank you, 
Madam Chair.
    Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Mr. LaMalfa. Now I 
recognize my good friend, Mr. Stauber, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I 
appreciate being waived on to the Committee today.
    I would like to take a few minutes to address my support 
for H.R. 4748, the Unrecognized Southeast Alaska Native 
Communities Recognition and Compensation Act, which I am proud 
to co-sponsor. I want to also thank my colleague and good 
friend from the great state of Alaska, Representative Peltola, 
for her leadership in introducing this legislation.
    This legislation was something that our former colleague, 
the late Representative Don Young, long championed. Following 
his passing last year, I was honored to assume first 
sponsorship of the bill, and I did not hesitate to co-sponsor 
the legislation when Representative Peltola asked me to do so 
earlier this summer.
    Mr. Rinehart, can you share how the Southeast Alaska Native 
Communities have been negatively affected by their inability to 
incorporate under the 1971 law? In other words, in what ways 
have these communities been short-changed because they have not 
been able to incorporate?
    Mr. Rinehart. Thank you, Congressman Stauber. Thank you for 
the co-sponsorship. Thank you for taking up the mantle when Don 
Young passed. Don was somebody I have known for decades, for a 
lot of my life. And thank you for making this a bipartisan 
bill, we really appreciate that.
    How are we impacted? I touched on a lot about the spiritual 
part already, about how that affects us by being separated from 
our land and how taking it away has really left us spiritually 
destitute and how this can be restored. But beyond that, there 
is also the economic side that really needs to be spoke about.
    When you look at the other communities around Southeastern 
Alaska that have their lands and the amount of dividends, 
scholarships, profits, and money that they have had for their 
people and their communities compared to ours, if you go to 
Huna, a very successful corporation there, I look up to them as 
a leading shining star, they have built a port facility for 
cruise ships to come in. There are so many jobs in Huna that 
everybody that wants to work has a job. And they have to bring 
people in. They have a hard time with housing.
    Mr. Stauber. Yes, Mr. Rinehart, just because of time, would 
it be safe to say that hundreds of millions of dollars of 
economic benefit did not come your way because----
    Mr. Rinehart. At least, yes.
    Mr. Stauber. At least. Yes. Thank you.
    In his testimony, Chief Deputy French shared a concern from 
the Forest Service that the land conveyances outlined in H.R. 
4748 would inhibit the ability for the Forest Service to meet 
its timber harvest goals. I just want to remind Deputy French 
that in the Superior and Chippewa National Forest in northern 
Minnesota, you are not even allowing and putting forth the 
maximum, allowable sale. Respectfully, I don't think it is a 
valid excuse. To fail to finally correct this 50-year wrong, to 
fail to properly recognize and compensate the Alaska Native 
communities across Southwest Alaska simply because doing so 
will make it harder for the Forest Service to meet its timber 
harvesting goals to me is unacceptable.
    These are vast tracts of forest under management by the 
Forest Service, whether it be in other areas of Alaska, my home 
state of Minnesota, or other parts of the country that can be 
utilized to meet timber harvesting goals. It is not right to 
deny these communities what they deserve.
    Mr. Rinehart, do you have confidence that the Southwest 
Alaska communities we are discussing today would be able to 
adequately manage the forest, take part in necessary logging 
activity, and otherwise properly and responsibly manage the 
land conveyed to them by the Forest Service if this bill were 
to pass and be signed into law?
    Mr. Rinehart. Thank you for that question, Congressman. I 
have no doubt.
    Mr. Stauber. Neither do I.
    Mr. Rinehart. We have been stewarding the land for 10,000 
years, and I am sure that we can manage for a few more years.
    Mr. Stauber. Yes.
    Mr. Rinehart. And we have experience from the other 
communities. For instance, myself, I am the President and CEO 
of Tlingit Haida Tribal Business Corporation, and I sit on the 
Board of Sealaska Corporation. We have a lot of experience 
within our tribe and within other communities that would be 
helpful. I have no doubt that we could manage it.
    Mr. Stauber. Mr. Rinehart, I would just say you are a 
tremendous communicator and a tremendous advocate. I have only 
watched you for just a few minutes. You are in the right place 
at the right time.
    Mr. Rinehart. I appreciate it.
    Mr. Stauber. I am sure your father would be very proud of 
you right now.
    Madam Chair, I just have one more question for Chairman 
Erickson.
    In your testimony, you mentioned that out of the 234 tribal 
law enforcement programs across the nation, more than 90 
percent of them have been contracted out under the Indian Self-
Determination and Educational Systems Act. The officers in that 
90 percent are tribal employees and not Federal employees, thus 
they do not receive the benefits of Federal pension and 
retirement. Can you elaborate on the constraints the Colville 
tribal law enforcement has faced as a result of this disparity 
between Federal and tribal employee benefits?
    Mr. Erickson. Thank you for that question. Yes, I guess 
losing a lot of our officers to other municipalities, I 
mentioned that earlier. If this is passed, having this would 
help with recruiting a lot of younger officers.
    We have a lot of younger tribal officers that are becoming 
PD officers now. I think this will help with enticing them to 
come and work for us and have a whole career. That is the whole 
idea is to get more tribal members, too, in these positions 
because they want to stay home, they want to be there, they 
want to help their communities.
    Mr. Stauber. As a former law enforcement officer myself, I 
totally agree with you.
    Madam Chair, thanks for being gracious, and I yield back.
    Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Mr. Stauber. Thank you to 
the witnesses.
    Now we are going to finish with the questions of Mr. 
LaMalfa. You are allowed 5 minutes.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Am I the only one? All right, I will go quick 
then.
    Well, you kind of heard it already, Mr. Carlson, so I will 
re-up that. When you find people applying or wanting to be part 
of the program, what impediment is there, what are you hearing 
from tribes that are interested in adding to herds or creating 
new herds? What are the challenges or speedbumps in that 
process?
    Mr. Carlson. One of the biggest challenges that they do 
have is the funding for all of the infrastructure that they 
need to have in place to house buffalo. And one of the big 
things bringing back buffalo is bringing back a big part of 
their culture but also for health reasons. But the 
infrastructure that I mentioned in my testimony, like fencing, 
and for grass range management, waterways for these animals, 
all of those infrastructures that they need is one of the big 
things that having that in place, the funding for that.
    Mr. LaMalfa. OK, so mainly a funding issue is what you are 
hearing, mostly from tribes that would want to be part of an 
expansion.
    Mr. Carlson. Well, the biggest part of really bringing back 
buffalo to them is the cultural part of it. That is first and 
foremost. It is a part of them that has been taken away. Also 
with that, a lot of issues, they want to create employment for 
their tribes. A lot of tribes, there are not that many 
employments within the reservations. One part of that is to 
create some revenue for their tribe to help out along with 
being the cultural part of it.
    Mr. LaMalfa. All right, we look forward to working more 
with all the tribes and expanding upon that and being 
successful with this legislation. I appreciate my colleague 
from Alaska, Mrs. Peltola, being a partner on it, too, 
especially in memory of my good pal, Mr. Don Young.
    I guess with that, the whole conversation reminds me of a 
Roger Miller song from the late 1960s called, ``You Can't 
Roller Skate in a Buffalo Herd.'' And we will have more 
opportunities to test that hopefully with this. Anyway, I had 
to do it, I am sorry.
    I yield back. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Mr. LaMalfa.
    With that, I want to thank all the witnesses for their 
valuable testimony and the Members for the questions as well.
    The members of the Committee may have some additional 
questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to 
these in writing. Under Committee Rule 3, members of the 
Committee must submit questions to the Committee Clerk by 5 
p.m. on Friday, December 8, 2023, and the hearing record will 
be held open for 10 business days for these responses.
    If there is no further business, without objection, the 
Committee stands adjourned. Thank you.

    [Whereupon, at 11:46 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

            [ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

                        Statement for the Record
                       Bureau of Land Management
                              on H.R. 4748

    H.R. 4748, the Unrecognized Southeast Alaska Native Communities 
Recognition and Compensation Act, would amend the Alaska Native Claims 
Settlement Act (ANCSA) (P.L. 92-203) to authorize the Southeast Alaska 
Native communities of Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee, and 
Wrangell to organize as Urban Corporations under Sealaska Corporation, 
the regional corporation for Southeast Alaska. The bill also directs 
the Secretary to convey approximately 23,040 acres of surface estate in 
the Tongass National Forest to each urban corporation, and to convey 
the subsurface estate underlying the same lands to Sealaska 
Corporation. H.R. 4748 further notes that Congress intends such 
conveyances to be made within two years from the date the corporations 
are formed.
Analysis

    In 1971, Congress passed ANCSA, which settled aboriginal land 
claims in Alaska by entitling Alaska Native communities to select and 
receive title to 46 million acres of Federal land. The Act established 
a corporate structure for Native landownership in Alaska under which 
Alaska Natives would become shareholders in one of over 200 private, 
land-owning Alaska Native village, group, urban, and reserve 
corporations and/or one of 12 private, for-profit, land-owning regional 
corporations. Most Alaska Natives are enrolled in two corporations; the 
corporation representing the community where they lived in 1970 and a 
regional corporation.

    Each regional corporation encompasses a specific geographic area 
and is associated with Alaska Natives who had traditionally lived in 
the area. For each corporation, whether village or regional, ANCSA 
provided at least two potential acreage entitlements through which it 
could select and receive ownership of Federal lands. For Alaska Natives 
who were non-residents of the state at the time the Act was signed into 
law, ANCSA authorized a non-landowning 13th Regional Corporation.

    Due to a monetary settlement prior to ANCSA (Tlingit and Haida 
Indians of Alaska and Harry Douglas, et al. v. United States, 182 Ct. 
Cl., 130, 389 F.2d 778, 1968), land entitlements in Southeast Alaska 
differ from those in the rest of the state. Section 16(a) of ANCSA 
withdrew lands for 10 specific Native villages located in Southeast 
Alaska, which did not include the communities of Haines, Ketchikan, 
Petersburg, Tenakee, and Wrangell.

    The communities of Haines, Ketchikan, and Tenakee have previously 
applied for eligibility for lands and benefits under ANCSA. The Bureau 
of Indian Affairs (BIA) originally determined Haines as eligible to 
receive land and benefits under ANCSA but reversed its decision in 
February 1974. The BIA also determined Tenakee and Ketchikan to be 
ineligible.

    All three appealed the BIA's decisions to the Alaska Native Claims 
Appeal Board (ANCAB), an ad hoc Interior appellate board established 
specifically to hear appeals on ANCSA matters. The ANCAB found that 
Congress intended to grant benefits only to the 10 villages listed in 
Sec. 16(a) of ANCSA and affirmed BIA's decisions. Petersburg and 
Wrangell did not apply for eligibility, and none of the five villages 
filed land selection applications.

    As the Secretary of the Interior's designated survey and land 
conveyance agent, the BLM is the Federal agency tasked with 
transferring to Alaska Native corporations title to the 46 million 
acres as required by ANCSA. The BLM's Alaska Land Transfer program 
administers the transfer of lands to individual Alaska Natives under 
the Alaska Native Allotment and Alaska Native Veterans Allotment Acts, 
the transfer of 46 million acres to Alaska Native communities under 
ANCSA, and the conveyance of 104.5 million acres to the State of Alaska 
under the Alaska Statehood Act.

    The BLM appreciates the Sponsor's efforts to resolve this long-
standing dispute regarding ANCSA eligibility for the Alaska Native 
communities of Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee, and Wrangell. 
The BLM would like to work with the Sponsor on several technical 
modifications to address potential issues, including conveyance of land 
with valid existing rights, and potentially contaminants, to the new 
Alaska Native Corporations. Additionally, the BLM would like to ensure 
all parcels identified are available to be transferred; and that 
previous and future allocations to regional corporations are unaffected 
by the bill. The BLM defers to the U.S. Forest Service on issues 
related to the land designated by the bill to be transferred, as the 
designated lands are all within the Tongass National Forest.

                                 ______
                                 

Submission for the Record by Rep. Peltola

                         The Wilderness Society

                                               December 5, 2023    

Hon. Harriet Hageman, Chair
Hon. Teresa Leger Fernandez, Ranking Member
House Natural Resources Committee
Subcommittee on Indian and Insular Affairs
Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Chair Hageman, Ranking Member Leger Fernandez, and Members of 
the Indian and Insular Affairs Subcommittee:

    On behalf of our more than one million members and supporters, The 
Wilderness Society (TWS) writes to express views on H.R. 4748, which is 
being heard before the Subcommittee on December 5, 2023. We 
respectfully request that this letter be included in the hearing 
record.
H.R. 4748, Unrecognized Southeast Alaska Native Communities Recognition 
        and Compensation Act

    The Wilderness Society has a long, established history of 
advocating for the conservation and protection of our country's 
invaluable, natural places, including areas like Alaska's Tongass 
National Forest. Our advocacy has evolved to include prioritizing 
inclusivity and intersectionality, as well as Tribal Sovereignty and 
Tribal Self-determination, acknowledging that Indigenous Peoples are a 
foundational partner in stewardship and conservation of our public 
lands.
    While our defense of the Tongass continues, we must correct the 
injustices faced by certain Native communities in Southeast Alaska. We 
acknowledge that the Tongass is the ancestral homelands of the Tlingit, 
Haida, and Tsimshian peoples. We acknowledge the fact that five Native 
communities were wrongfully excluded from the Alaska Native Claims 
Settlement Act when the bill was passed in 1971, and we must, at a 
minimum, support efforts to correct this. As a result, we support H.R. 
4748, the Unrecognized Southeast Alaska Native Communities Recognition 
and Compensation Act, sponsored by Rep. Peltola, in recognition of 
important equity issues that must be addressed.
    We ask Congress to ensure proper capitalization of these 
corporations at the outset to avoid forcing the corporations to rely on 
extractive industries to fund their startup costs. Adequate initial 
funding will also attempt to compensate these five communities for the 
earning potential they were denied for the past 50 years.
    We apologize to our Native partners for the hurt our past 
opposition to this bill has caused; we continue to do the necessary 
work of centering our Native partners and reflecting on how we can 
better support them; and we trust in the communities of Haines, 
Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee Springs, and Wrangell to continue to 
steward this land as they have since time immemorial through their 
newly formed corporations.
    Despite this long-standing injustice, several Southeast Alaska 
Tribes, including some of the Alaska Native communities affected by 
this issue, continue to partner with us, including in defense of 
Roadless Rule protections in the Tongass. We hope this shift from The 
Wilderness Society is the first step in restoring balance in Southeast 
Alaska, and we hope we can continue to build trust with our Native 
partners, both in Alaska and across the country. We urge the Committee 
to support this legislation.

    Thank you for considering our views.

            Sincerely,

                                      Karlin Itchoak, J.D.,
                            Senior Regional Director, Alaska Region

                                 [all]