Setting New Foundations (S. Hrg. 117-505, May 4, 2022)
Summary
Senate Hearing 117-505 records the May 4, 2022 hearing of the Committee on Indian Affairs on implementing the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act for Native communities, with Chairman Brian Schatz presiding. Federal witnesses include Wizipan Garriott of Indian Affairs at the Department of the Interior, Elizabeth Fowler of the Indian Health Service, Timothy Hess of the Federal Highway Administration and Adam Geisler of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration; tribal and Native witnesses include Harold Frazier, Mark Mitchell and Nicole Borromeo. Schatz says the Act contains more than $11 billion in dedicated resources for Native communities. A tribal statement says FCC rules for the 2.5 GHz band license require coverage of at least 50 percent of a Reservation population within two years.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Cite this document
“Setting New Foundations (S. Hrg. 117-505, May 4, 2022).”
Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/setting-new-foundations-implementing-the-infrastructure-investment-and-3e0cd827a1/
, SHA-256 636618df41f5bb43d32aa556fb7ab7deab99c668a367540db81029e8955cc932.Full text
[Senate Hearing 117-505]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 117-505
SETTING NEW FOUNDATIONS: IMPLEMENTING THE
INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT AND JOBS ACT
FOR NATIVE COMMUNITIES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 4, 2022
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Indian Affairs
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
49-821 WASHINGTON : 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii, Chairman
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Vice Chairman
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
JON TESTER, Montana JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma
CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada STEVE DAINES, Montana
TINA SMITH, Minnesota MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico JERRY MORAN, Kansas
Jennifer Romero, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Lucy Murfitt, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on May 4, 2022...................................... 1
Statement of Senator Cortez Masto................................ 20
Statement of Senator Lujan....................................... 27
Statement of Senator Murkowski................................... 2
Statement of Senator Rounds...................................... 25
Statement of Senator Schatz...................................... 1
Witnesses
Borromeo, Nicole, Executive Vice President/General Counsel,
Alaska Federation of Natives................................... 46
Prepared statement........................................... 47
Fowler, Elizabeth, Acting Director, Indian Health Service, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services........................ 8
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Frazier, Hon. Harold, Chairman, Great Plains Tribal Chairman's
Association.................................................... 37
Prepared statement........................................... 38
Garriott, Wizipan, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Indian
Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior....................... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Geisler, Adam, Division Chief, Tribal Connectivity and Nation To
Nation Coordination, National Telecommunications and
Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce........ 17
Prepared statement........................................... 18
Hess, Timothy, Associate Administrator for Federal Lands, Federal
Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation...... 12
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Mitchell, Hon. Mark, Chairman, All Pueblo Council of Governors... 31
Prepared statement........................................... 33
Yoshimi, Garret, Chief Information Officer/Vice President,
Information Technology, University of Hawaii................... 42
Prepared statement........................................... 43
Appendix
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Steve Daines to:
Elizabeth Fowler............................................. 74
Wizipan Garriott............................................. 70
Adam Geisler................................................. 78
Timothy Hess................................................. 66
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Ben Ray Lujan to:
Wizipan Garriott............................................. 71
Adam Geisler................................................. 78
Timothy Hess................................................. 68
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Brian Schatz to:
Hon. Harold Frazier.......................................... 62
Elizabeth Fowler............................................. 72
Wizipan Garriott............................................. 70
Adam Geisler................................................. 75
Timothy Hess................................................. 63
Hon. Mark Mitchell........................................... 59
Garret Yoshimi............................................... 67
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Jon Tester to
Hon. Harold Frazier............................................ 63
U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS--ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION ON
CONCRETE SOLUTIONS: BUILDING A SUCCESSFUL FOUNDATION FOR NATIVE
COMMUNITIES' INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT--WEDNESDAY, JUNE 23,
2021........................................................... 79
U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS--ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION ON
CLOSING THE DIGITAL DIVIDE IN NATIVE COMMUNITIES THROUGH
INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT--WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2022......... 99
SETTING NEW FOUNDATIONS:
IMPLEMENTING THE INFRASTRUCTURE
INVESTMENT AND JOBS ACT FOR NATIVE
COMMUNITIES
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 4, 2022
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Indian Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in room
628, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Brian Schatz,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BRIAN SCHATZ,
U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII
The Chairman. Good afternoon and welcome.
Federal funding for infrastructure in Native communities
across the Country has long lagged behind the need. From
housing to clean water access to surface transportation,
substandard infrastructure continues to impact the everyday
lives of Native Americans.
Last year, tribal organizations representing more than 580
tribes from across the Country wrote to Congress detailing the
unmet infrastructure needs of their communities across almost
every sector and urged development of an Indian Marshall Plan
to address these inadequacies.
We listened and we acted. Thanks to the bipartisan
leadership of many on this Committee, the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act contains more than $11 billion in
dedicated resources for Native communities to improve crumbling
roads and bridges throughout Indian Country, provide tribes
with access to adequate water and sanitation, enhance broadband
services for Native communities, and strengthen tribal climate
resiliency among other critical infrastructure priorities.
Today, we will examine the implementation status of those
provisions six months after the law has passed. We will hear
from Federal agencies in charge of this historic Federal
investment and learn how such investments are poised to deploy
and improve infrastructure in Native communities across the
Country.
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law is just the first step to
address the poor infrastructure conditions in Native
communities, tribal hospitals, schools, detention facilities,
and other critical infrastructure are top of mind. For Native
Hawaiians in particular, we still have a lot of work to do.
I am pleased to announce that the Committee will hold a
field hearing in Hawaii, the first in more than 10 years, to
continue our work to ensure equitable access to Federal
infrastructure resources for Native Hawaiians.
I would like to extend a warm welcome and aloha to Mr.
Yoshimi and to our other witnesses joining us today. I look
forward to your testimony and our discussion.
I will turn it over to my friend, the Vice Chair, for her
opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
To our witnesses, thank you for being here this afternoon.
We appreciate it.
Chairman Schatz, I appreciate the opportunity that we have
before the Committee to focus on this significant measure, the
Infrastructure Bill that was passed into law last year.
I spent a lot of time last year working to advance this to
make sure that we were able to get it over the finish line. Now
we are in the harder stage, and that is implementation and
ensuring its success. That starts with robust Federal oversight
of the Federal agencies charged with the extraordinary
responsibility of implementing the law which in many cases
involves setting up brand new programs and ramping up existing
programs on a much larger scale. It is clearly no easy task.
I want to extend my thanks to the four Federal agencies
that are represented here today and an appreciation for the
participation in the Federal Grant Symposium that I hosted in
Anchorage last month.
I also want to thank Nicole Borromeo and AFN for your
contributions. The in-person participation to help tribal,
State, and local leaders begin to navigate this massive new law
was pivotal to the success of the event that we had. I am
hopeful we were able to really develop some good partnerships
so that as these programs and the grant opportunities come
together, Alaskans know who to call and can begin to prioritize
in that way.
So much is included within the opportunities here. Even
before the Infrastructure Bill, where we saw Federal resources
coming together, on broadband, we worked to build to create the
Tribal Broadband Connectivity Grant Program, funding that at $1
billion through our 2020 year-end appropriations. Then the
COVID-19 relief bill with the infrastructure law, not only
building up the broadband but everything else that came with
it.
As we are seeing with tribal broadband and many other
programs funded in the law, successful implementation is going
to require interagency coordination, robust tribal
consultation, and intergovernmental collaboration at all
levels, and the development of a workforce that includes
members of the local Native community.
Many of the comments and questions that we picked up from
Alaskans and Native leaders have two themes. The first theme is
optimism about the unprecedented level of funding. But the
second theme is concern about missing out on this once in a
generation opportunity. I am pleased we have these Federal
agencies to testify about how they are going to ensure that the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law will in fact meet the needs
across Indian Country.
Where grants are competitive, technical assistance will be
paramount to making sure areas of highest need are not left
behind. After two years of the pandemic, many of our tribal
administrators and our Native leaders are maxed out, they are
stretched thin. I am going to be very interested in hearing how
the Administration is taking an all-of-government approach in
making tribes aware of all of the relevant opportunities.
Again, I want to welcome our witnesses not only on this
panel present with us but also those who are virtual. A
particular shout out and welcome to Nicole Borromeo. She is the
Executive Vice President and General Counsel for the Alaska
Federation of Natives. Again, I would mention AFN has been
working really hard to help Alaska Natives navigate the many
Federal and State agencies that are distributing funds and
providing services.
I thank her for participating and I will look forward with
great interest to the testimony from both panels today.
The Chairman. Thank you, Vice Chair.
We will now introduce our panelists. We have Mr. Wizipan
Garriott, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Indian
Affairs at the Department of the Interior; Ms. Elizabeth
Fowler, Acting Director, Indian Health Service, U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services; Mr. Timothy Hess, Associate
Administrator for Federal Lands at the Federal Highway
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation; and Adam
Geisler, Division Chief, Tribal Connectivity and Nation-to-
Nation Coordination, National Telecommunications and
Information Administration.
I want to remind our witnesses that your full written
testimony will be made a part of the record and would encourage
you to confine your verbal remarks to five minutes or less.
With that, welcome, Mr. Garriott. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF WIZIPAN GARRIOTT, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY
ASSISTANT SECRETARY, INDIAN AFFAIRS, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Garriott. Hello and good afternoon, Chairman Schatz,
Vice Chairman Murkowski, and members of the Committee.
Iyuha cante nape ciyuzapelo. I greet you with a good heart.
My name is Wizipan Garriott. I am a citizen of the Rosebud
Sioux Tribe. I serve as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Indian Affairs at the U.S. Department of the Interior.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide a statement on behalf
of the Department on implementation of the historic
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, also known as the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
Per the direction of the Chairman, I will summarize my
previously prepared verbal statement to hit some of the high
points and cut down on some of the time.
The infrastructure law provided over $13 billion directly
set aside for tribal projects and for tribes. Of that, $3.1
billion was allocated to the Department of Interior for which
tribes are eligible to apply.
We started our implementation on the right foot, I believe,
through tribal consultation. It was not just for the Indian
Affairs programs but really for all of the funding. There were
three consistent themes: interagency coordination, technical
assistance, and streamlining the permitting processes.
The White House Council on Native American Affairs meets
regularly and BIL implementation is a regular topic of
discussion in which we get to work with our other sister
Federal agencies. In addition, we are in the process right now
of hiring an interagency coordinator position which will
provide direct technical assistance to tribes and tribal
applicants not only for Interior funding but across the entire
government, as well as another position that is more regional,
focused on climate resiliency.
Additionally, we know that the success of this funding is
going to be dependent on rights-of-way, business leases and us
at the Department of Interior doing our job so that when
projects are funded, money and projects can be deployed as
quickly as possible.
Indian Affairs overall, we received $466 million directly
that we are responsible for; $216 million of that was for
tribal climate resilience, adaptation, and community
relocation; $250 million was for irrigation and power and
safety of dams, and water sanitation. In addition, $2.5 billion
was provided for water settlements, of which $1.7 billion has
been deployed by Indian Affairs. Additionally, $150 million was
allocated for orphan wells on tribal lands.
Finally, the department was provided with $905 million for
ecosystem restoration and resilience funding. Tribes are
eligible to apply for that funding.
The department is thankful for the leadership of the
members of this Committee and their continued support for
Indian Country and everything that you do.
I will conclude my remarks and be happy to answer any
questions the Committee may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Garriott follows:]
Prepared Statement of Wizipan Garriott, Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary, Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior
Good afternoon, Chairman Schatz, Vice Chairman Murkowski, and
members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to provide a
statement on behalf of the Department of the Interior (Department) on
implementation of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA),
also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), for Native
Communities. I greatly appreciate the lead title for this hearing,
``Setting New Foundations''. As transformative legislation, IIJA is
setting a new foundation due to the significant level of resources
provided, and the opportunity created to improve service delivery and
advance self-determination across Indian Country.
IIJA Funding for Indian Affairs and Across the Department
In total the IIJA invests more than $13 billion directly in Tribal
communities across the country and Tribes may apply for billions more
through various grant processes being deployed throughout other
agencies. These resources go to many Federal agencies to expand access
to clean drinking water for Native communities, ensure every Native
American has access to high-speed Internet, tackle the climate crisis,
advance environmental justice, and invest in Tribal communities that
have too often been left behind.
The Department received over $3.1 billion directly for Tribal
communities, which included a $466 million investment for the Bureau of
Indian Affairs infrastructure projects and climate resiliency
initiatives, $150 million for Tribal orphan wells, and a historic
investment of $2.5 billion to help the Department fulfill pre-existing
settlements of Indian water rights claims. The IIJA also made Tribal
communities eligible for additional Department programs to support
building resilience to wildland fire and drought, restoring ecosystems,
enabling fish passage, and addressing legacy pollution from abandoned
mine lands and orphan oil and gas wells.
Consistent with the Administration's commitment to consult with
Tribes and support self-determination the Department began
implementation with three Tribal consultations covering all programs
for which Tribes are eligible. The consultations were completed within
the timeframes necessary to inform spend plans that were required by
the IIJA. The consultations served both to increase awareness of
funding opportunities for Tribes and to gather input from Tribal
leaders. There were three consistent themes: interagency coordination;
technical assistance, and streamline permitting. As the IIJA programs
will be implemented over several years, future consultations may be
necessary.
Additionally, the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) continues to
conduct Tribal consultation on investing IIJA funding with a commitment
to supporting Reclamation's strong relationships with Tribal
communities. Starting in December and continuing through the spring,
Reclamation hosted consultation sessions with Tribal leaders on IIJA
implementation. Reclamation also conducted separate outreach sessions
for Tribes and appreciated the opportunity to hear from these
communities about the effectiveness of its BIL-funded programs. These
Tribal consultation sessions provided additional ideas for broadening
outreach to Tribes who are eligible for Reclamation's BIL-funded
programs described below.
Creating a Whole of Government Approach and Maximizing Impact
Indian Affairs is often called upon by Indian country to represent
the needs of Indian country and help drive an all of government
approach to maximizing the many opportunities for Indian country. We
are working to implement Indian country's recommendations through
interagency coordination, technical assistance, process improvement,
and leveraging of acquisition authorities.
Enhancing Coordination
Successful implementation of the IIJA requires significant
consultation, coordination, and leveraging of partnerships. Within the
Department, weekly coordination meetings with all bureaus and
Departmental leadership ensure the needs of Tribes are considered for
all Department IIJA programs.
We are also engaging across the Federal government with several
coordination strategies. First, we are leveraging existing interagency
coordinating venues. This starts with the White House Council on Native
American Affairs (WHCNAA). The Department, in coordination with WHCNAA,
is uniquely positioned to define and communicate the benefits of the
infrastructure law to Indian Country. The various subcommittees of the
WHCNAA are critical to Federal coordination and communication. We are
also engaging with the White House Office of Intergovernmental Affairs
to produce a Tribal Playbook which clarifies all the IIJA funding
opportunities available to Tribal communities. Second, across
programmatic areas, our team is leveraging interagency coordination
through ongoing participation in the White House Tribal Broadband
Coordination Committee and working with the Council on Environmental
Quality's climate resilience working groups and the Environmental
Protection Agency-led Water Infrastructure Task Force.
Technical Assistance
The need to provide technical assistance to Tribes cannot be
overstated. Therefore, the Indian Affairs spend plan included the
creation of an Interagency Coordinator position who will assist Tribes
and Tribal organizations identify and apply for available funds. The
incumbent in this position will also be charged to work within the
federal family to assist sister federal agencies in making their
programs more accessible to Indian country.
Streamlining Processes
Timely approval of permitting and realty actions are critical to
infrastructure investment in Indian Country. To this end, BIA recently
announced a National Policy Memorandum (NPM-TRUS-44) which streamlines
the rights-of-way (ROWs) and business lease application process for
projects funded by the American Rescue Plan Act and Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), as well as Telecommunications and
Renewable Energy Projects. This action advances the policy of the BIA
to support Tribal Nations in exercising their sovereignty to govern
their lands and pursue economic self-sufficiency, conservation
practices, and climate resiliency. Specifically, this National Policy
Memorandum provides clear direction to ensure that ROWs and business
leases are expedited so there is no unnecessary delay in deploying
critical infrastructure to Indian country. Additionally, the fiscal
year (FY) 2023 President's Budget requests an additional $2 million
that will allow the BIA to increase staffing for realty functions which
are critical to infrastructure investment.
Leveraging Buy Indian Act Authorities
Indian Affairs is also working to expand the impact of IIJA and
other infrastructure funding by increasing the use of Buy Indian Act
authorities. This is being done by focusing on engaging with and
maximizing opportunities for Indian small businesses, and using an
integrated approach of policies, procedures, training, and strategic
contract implementation. The recent update to Buy Indian Act
regulations are a critical step forward. The updates allow the
Department to eliminate barriers to Indian Economic Enterprises from
competing on certain construction contracts, expand Indian Economic
Enterprises' ability to subcontract construction work consistent with
other socio-economic set-aside programs, and give greater preference to
Indian Economic Enterprises when a deviation from the Buy Indian Act is
necessary, among other updates. The update also aligns Indian Affairs
and Indian Health Service regulations to facilitate more contracting
opportunities for eligible entities under the Buy Indian Act. In order
to leverage this rule change, Indian Affairs will solicit proposals
from Native-owned construction businesses for a new $1.5 billion
nationwide contract that will cover a wide range of projects for
bureaus across the Department.
Implementation of Department Programs Directly Benefiting Tribes
Meeting Our Obligations for Indian Water Rights Settlements
In February, the Department announced allocations totaling $1.7
billion for enacted Indian water rights settlements that have
outstanding federal payments necessary to complete their terms. This
funding allows the administration to uphold our trust responsibilities
and ensure Tribal communities receive the water resources they have
long been promised. These investments promote economic development and
ecosystem restoration. For example, the funding allocated to the
Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes will be used to rehabilitate
and modernize the Flathead Indian Irrigation Project and restore
damages to fish and wildlife habitat, while providing water for farmers
and ranchers who depend on irrigation for their livelihoods. As part of
the implementation strategy, an Indian Water Rights Settlement
Completion Fund Executive Committee was established, comprised of the
Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation, Chairperson of the Working
Group on Indian Water Settlements, Director of the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, Assistant Secretaries of Water and Science and Indian Affairs,
and the Solicitor. The Executive Committee will recommend future
allocations of the remainder of the Completion Fund to the Secretary.
In order to complete allocations of remaining funding, BIA is engaging
with Tribes to finalize indexing costs which are necessary to determine
their final settlement payments. The Bureau of Reclamation will
continue to work with the Department to identify project specific
allocations from the Fund to meet implementation needs.
Advancing Climate Resilience
The IIJA included $216 million for Tribal climate resilience,
adaptation, and community relocation planning, design, and
implementation of projects which address the varying climate challenges
facing Tribal communities across the country. Within this total, $130
million is directed toward Community Relocation and $86 million is
directed toward Climate Resilience and Adaptation Projects. Total
funding of $43.2 million is available each year for fiscal years 2022-
2026.
On April 11th, Indian Affairs announced the request for proposals
from Tribes and Tribal organizations for approximately $46 million from
the Bureau of Indian Affairs Branch of Tribal Climate Resilience which
is funded by the IIJA and FY 2022 annual appropriations. Tribal needs
are diverse. Each Tribe has its own various climate resilience
capacities, needs, and issues to address. The existing Tribal Climate
Resilience Awards Program has been focused on training, capacity
building, and planning since its inception in 2011. IIJA funds will
enable BIA to expand the Awards Program to start funding implementation
projects developed from their plans.
In addition to the Awards Program, the Department will announce
Community Relocation pilot projects in a few communities to serve as
demonstration sites. The sites will be chosen based on factors such as
risk level, community-readiness, existing plans, and potential to yield
lessons-learned for other Tribes facing similar issues. A study
conducted by BIA estimated that addressing unmet infrastructure needs
associated with relocation will cost $4.8 billion in Alaska and the
lower 48. Given this significant cost of implementing community
relocation, effective coordination with Federal, State, local and NGO
partners is critical to ensuring we successfully increase resilience of
Native communities. Leveraging additional federal funding will be
critical to success.
Investing in Irrigation and Power, Safety of Dams and Water Sanitation
Improvements
The IIJA included $250 million for Irrigation and Power, Safety of
Dams and Water Sanitation, with $50 million available to spend
annually. This funding is critical to address our deferred maintenance
backlog in these areas. In FY 2022, $10.65 million is allocated for
water sanitation. Water and Sanitation project funding has been
coordinated with the Indian Health Services and will be used to support
improvement and repair projects that address public health and safety
compliance issues at Indian Affairs-owned drinking water and sanitation
systems. In FY 2022, $10 million is allocated for Irrigation and Power
projects; within this total approximately 70 percent will be directed
to Indian Irrigation Projects and the remaining 30 percent will support
BIA-owned power utilities. BIA will prioritize funding of projects that
reduce deferred maintenance and the risk of failure and align with
condition assessments and modernization studies to rehabilitate aging
infrastructure. For Safety of Dams, $29.1 million is allocated in FY
2022 to begin addressing the $1 billion deferred maintenance backlog
for BIA owned dams. The allocation of funding is planned to follow
current program practices which prioritize project funding. The BIA
routinely performs inspections and analysis of all high-hazard program
dams to understand the risk each structure presents to downstream
residents. BIA uses the results of this work to prioritize distribution
of design and construction funding to the highest risk dams. We plan to
start announcing project funding allocations for each of these programs
in May.
Outside of Indian Affairs, our team continues to collaborate with
other Department programs on program implementation in areas such as
wildland fire, ecosystem restoration, abandoned mine lands and orphan
wells. Similarly, we are engaged with partners in other Federal
agencies to support their engagement with Tribes. I look forward to
updating the Committee in the future about how IIJA funding from our
partners benefit Indian Country.
Western Water Infrastructure
The $8.3 billion investment under Title IX (Western Water
Infrastructure) of the IIJA supports Reclamation's ongoing work to
improve water infrastructure while promoting racial and economic
equity. IIJA provides significant funding for longstanding Reclamation
programs including WaterSMART, which has been identified by numerous
Tribes across the West as an essential program for enhancing water
infrastructure and attenuating drought conditions. IIJA funding will
expand the reach of WaterSMART and allow Reclamation to leverage
additional resources, including funding and technical assistance
provided by Reclamation's Native American Affairs Program, to modernize
infrastructure and increase water reliability and resilience for Native
communities.
Other Funding
The IIJA provided the Department with $905 million for Ecosystem
Restoration and Resilience funding, of which $464.6 million is made
available to various bureaus, including BIA. The range of projects
funded include restoration of ecological health by improving forest
health and reducing the risk of resource loss to environmental factors
such as insects, disease, and wildfire. This investment will provide
for adaptation/plant ecologists to provide regional technical expertise
to support ecological restoration efforts on Indian lands at various
USGS Climate Adaptation Science Center regions. Additionally, the
Department is providing funding to the recently announced America the
Beautiful Challenge Fund administered through the National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation. Tribes will be eligible to compete for these
grants.
Conclusion
The Department is thankful to the leadership and members of the
Committee for their continued support for Indian country and the IIJA.
The Department looks forward to continuing to work with the Committee
on implementing this once in a generation opportunity for Indian
country.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Ms. Fowler.
STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH FOWLER, ACTING DIRECTOR,
INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
AND HUMAN SERVICES; ACCOMPANIED BY: RADM MARK CALKINS, P.E.,
ASSISTANT SURGEON GENERAL, U.S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE;
DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF SANITATION
FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION, INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE
Ms. Fowler. Good afternoon Chairman Schatz, Vice Chairman
Murkowski, and members of the Committee.
I too want to say thank you for the opportunity to provide
updates on the Indian Health Service programs benefitting
American Indian and Alaska Native communities under the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. I want to also express
our appreciation for the $3.5 billion that was appropriated to
the Indian Health Service under this Act.
At the end of fiscal year 2021, about 1.9 percent of all
American Indian and Alaska Native homes tracked by IHS lacked
water supply or wastewater disposal facilities. Approximately
29 percent of American Indian and Alaska Native homes tracked
by IHS were in need of some form of sanitation facility
improvements.
Many of these homes without service are typically located
in remote locations which means the capital costs to construct
these facilities are significantly higher than provision of
similar facilities in other geographic locations. Additionally,
the cost burden associated with operation and maintenance of
these facilities usually exceeds the capacity of the tribal
utility to generate sufficient revenue from the system users to
support ongoing operation.
In collaboration with tribes, IHS annually updates the
sanitation deficiency system project listing to account for the
addition of newly identified sanitation deficiencies and to
update cost estimates. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
Act appropriated a total of $3.5 billion to the IHS Sanitation
Facilities Construction Program and includes $700 million
annually from fiscal year 2022 to fiscal year 2026.
The funds will support the construction of water,
wastewater, and solid waste facilities in American Indian and
Alaska Native Tribes and communities. The IHS support for these
facilities is an integral component of IHS disease prevention
activities. Research supported by the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention states, ``Populations and regions with a
lower proportion of homes with water service reflect
significantly higher hospitalization rates for pneumonia,
influenza and respiratory syncytial virus.'' Researchers
associated the increase in illnesses with the restricted access
to clean water for handwashing and hygiene.
IHS initiated tribal consultation on the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act funding in November of 2021 to seek
input into the agency's funding allocation plans. I am pleased
to say that the Indian Health Service is nearing publication of
funding allocation decisions for the $700 million in fiscal
year 2022 funds. Now that the fiscal year 2022 final
appropriation is enacted, the IHS also is taking the $198
million provided in annual appropriations for the SFC Program
into consideration and finalizing the Infrastructure Investment
and Jobs Act spend plan.
We look forward to continuing our work with Congress
related to the Sanitation Facilities Construction Program and
the use of our Infrastructure Investment and Job Act funds to
make improvements in tribal communities.
I would like to let you know that I am accompanied today by
the Director of our Sanitation Facilities Construction Program,
Rear Admiral Mark Calkins.
That will conclude my remarks. I am happy to answer any
questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Fowler follows:]
Prepared Statement of Elizabeth Fowler, Acting Director, Indian Health
Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Good afternoon Chairman Schatz, Vice Chairman Murkowski, and
Members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to provide an
update on Indian Health Service (IHS) programs benefitting American
Indian and Alaska Native communities under the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA).
The IHS is an agency within the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) and our mission is to raise the physical, mental,
social, and spiritual health of American Indians and Alaska Natives to
the highest level. This mission is carried out in partnership with
American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal communities through a network
of over 687 Federal and Tribal health facilities and 41 Urban Indian
Organizations (UIOs) that are located across 37 states and provide
health care services to approximately 2.7 million American Indian and
Alaska Native people annually.
Sanitation Facilities Construction Program
The 1988 amendments to the Indian Health Care Improvement Act
require IHS to maintain inventories of sanitation deficiencies for
existing Indian homes and communities, to prioritize those
deficiencies, and to annually report those deficiencies to Congress.
Since 1989, IHS has annually reported these needs to Congress in the
form of projects, which are currently catalogued in the Sanitation
Deficiency System (SDS). Projects are identified in terms of the
facilities to be provided, the cost of those facilities, and the number
of homes to be served by the facilities. Funding for projects is
distributed to the Areas based on an allocation formula that takes into
account the relative needs identified in each Area's SDS inventory. The
Sanitation Facilities Construction (SFC) program employs a cooperative
approach for planning, designing and constructing sanitation facilities
serving American Indian and Alaska Native communities. Each project is
initiated at the request of a Tribe or Tribal Organization, and
coordination is maintained throughout project planning, design and
construction.
At the end of fiscal year (FY) 2021 about 7,228, or 1.9 percent of
all American Indian and Alaska Native homes tracked by IHS lacked water
supply or wastewater disposal facilities; and, about 108,459 or
approximately 29 percent of American Indian and Alaska Native homes
tracked by IHS were in need of some form of sanitation facilities
improvements. Many of these homes without service are typically located
in remote locations such as on the Navajo Nation and in some remote
Alaska Native Villages. The capital cost to construct these facilities
are significantly higher than the provision of similar facilities in
other geographic locations. Additionally, the cost burden associated
with operation and maintenance of these facilities usually exceeds the
capacity of the Tribal utility to generate sufficient revenue from the
system users to support ongoing operation.
The IHS tracks sanitation projects in the SDS. The list of
sanitation projects in the SDS is not static. In collaboration with
Tribes, IHS annually updates the SDS project listing to account for the
addition of newly identified sanitation deficiencies and to update cost
estimates due to increases related to inflation, labor and material
costs, and project scope changes.
At the end of FY 2021, the SDS included 1,513 projects. Of this
total, 945 projects were feasible and 568 projects were infeasible with
a combined total database cost estimated at $3.4 billion in eligible
costs and an additional $735 million in ineligible costs that will have
to come from other non-IHS funding resources.
Ineligible costs are the costs associated with serving commercial,
industrial, or agricultural establishments, including nursing homes,
health clinics, schools, hospitals, hospital quarters, and non-American
Indian and Alaska Native homes. The Sanitation Facilities Construction
Act prevents the IHS from using its appropriations for these costs.
However, the IHS regularly partners with Tribes and other Federal
Agencies to identify alternative resources to successfully support
these ineligible costs. If our Federal funding partners are not able to
contribute financial support for the projects that have IHS ineligible
costs, those projects will not be fully funded and hence cannot be
completed.
Economically infeasible projects are those that exceed a per unit
cost set for each IHS Area, and three different regions within the IHS
Alaska Area. While there was not a statutory barrier to funding
economically infeasible projects, the IHS had not been able to fund
these projects in light of limited annual appropriations before the
IIJA was enacted. The IIJA provided $2.2 billion for economically
infeasible projects.
The IHS categorizes SDS projects into three Tiers depending on a
project's progress toward completing planning activities.
Tier 1 projects are considered ready to fund because planning
is complete. However, design and construction contract document
creation activities are not yet complete for current Tier 1
projects. These projects then move through the design and
construction contract document creation steps before a
construction contract can be initiated through Federal or
Tribal procurement methods.
Tier 2 projects are projects that have a level of engineering
assessment completed, such that the deficiency is understood
and a recommended solution has been analyzed and scoped; these
projects have a cost estimate and design parameters that are
accurate within plus or minus 25 percent.
Tier 3 projects are projects with cost estimates and design
parameters that do not have a specific accuracy target, but are
based on the best information available at the time of
submission. These projects demonstrate that an eligible
deficiency has been identified, but the Area may not have
determined the recommended solution.
The IHS also assigns a Deficiency Level to each project in the SDS.
Deficiency Levels are assigned in accordance with section 302(g)(4) of
the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (IHCIA) (25 U.S.C. 1632(g)(4))
for each sanitation facilities project that has been identified as a
need to support Indian Tribes and communities. The Deficiency Levels
are explained in the table below.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sanitation
Deficiency Level Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
V An Indian tribe or community that lacks a safe
water supply and a sewage disposal system.
IV An Indian tribe or community with a sanitation
system which lacks either a safe water supply
system or a sewage disposal system.
III An Indian tribe or community with a sanitation
system which has an inadequate or partial water
supply and a sewage disposal facility that does
not comply with applicable water supply and
pollution control laws, or has no solid waste
disposal facility.
II An Indian tribe or community with a sanitation
system which complies with all applicable water
supply and pollution control laws, and in which
the deficiencies relate to capital improvements
that are necessary to improve the facilities in
order to meet the needs of such tribe or
community for domestic sanitation facilities.
I An Indian tribe or community with a sanitation
system which complies with all applicable water
supply and pollution control laws, and in which
the deficiencies relate to routine replacement,
repair, or maintenance needs.
0 No deficiencies to correct.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SFC projects can be directly operated by the IHS through Federal
Acquisition Regulation contracts or through Tribal procurement. Tribes
can directly operate SFC projects through Indian Self-Determination and
Education Assistance Act construction contracts (25 C.F.R. 900 Subpart
J, 42 C.F.R. 137 Subpart N).
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
The IIJA appropriated a total of $3.5 billion to the IHS SFC
program. The Act includes $700 million annually from FY 2022 through FY
2026. The Act includes a maximum 3 percent ($21 million) set-aside for
salaries, expenses, and administration each year. These funds are
limited to Federal costs only. It also directs that the IHS provide 0.5
percent ($3.5 million) each year to the Office of the Inspector General
for oversight of these funds. Finally, the Act also directs the Agency
to use up to $2.2 billion of the $3.5 billion appropriation on
economically infeasible projects.
The IIJA funds will support the construction of water, wastewater,
and solid waste facilities in American Indian and Alaska Native tribes
and communities. The IHS support for these facilities is an integral
component of IHS disease prevention activities. As a result, infant
mortality rates and mortality rates for gastroenteritis and other
environmentally-related diseases have declined. Research supported by
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention states populations in
regions with a lower proportion of homes with water service, reflect
significantly higher hospitalization rates for pneumonia, influenza,
and respiratory syncytial virus. \1\ Researchers associated the
increasing illnesses with the restricted access to clean water for hand
washing and hygiene.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Thomas W. Hennessy, Troy Ritter, Robert C. Holman, Dana L.
Bruden, Krista L. Yorita, Lisa Bulkow, James E. Cheek, Rosalyn J.
Singleton, and Jeff Smith. The Relationship Between In-Home Water
Service and the Risk of Respiratory Tract, Skin, and Gastrointestinal
Tract Infections Among Rural Alaska Natives. American Journal of Public
Health: November 2008, Vol. 98, No. 11, pp. 2072-2078.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SFC Program works collaboratively with Tribes to assure all
American Indian and Alaska Native homes and communities are provided
with safe and adequate water supply and waste disposal facilities. The
residents of these homes will benefit from reduced health care cost
associated with water related illnesses. The IHS estimated in FY 2021
that for every $1 in funding provided for sanitation facilities
resulted in $1.23 in avoided medical cost related to inpatient and
outpatient visits related to respiratory, skin and soft tissue, and
gastro enteric disease. As required by the bill, IHS will update the
Congressional spend plan for these funds annually through FY 2026.
Using Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act Funds
In November 2021, the IHS initiated Tribal Consultation on the IIJA
funding to inform Tribes about the Agency's funding allocation plans.
The common themes from Tribal Consultation noted that the IHS should:
Use the data in the SDS to allocate funds, and follow the
direction of the IIJA by providing support for economically
infeasible projects;
Prioritize the allocation of funds where the majority of the
funds can be used to immediately construct projects;
Provide sufficient funding for planning and design activities
to get projects ready to fund, and weigh these resources toward
projects that address higher sanitation deficiency levels;
Coordinate with Tribes and other Federal agencies, like the
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), to develop a plan to
address ineligible costs and discuss how to maximize community
benefit of the projects;
Create a plan to address the full need for SFC projects in
Tribal communities, and remove any unnecessary limitations that
were previously used to allocate limited funding;
Continue to seek annual, ongoing funding to address the full
scope of SFC needs, including requesting any additional
administrative costs necessary to implement the IIJA funds; and
Increase funding for special and emergency projects, in light
of the significant new funding for the SFC.
The IHS is nearing publication of funding allocation decisions for
the $700 million in FY 2022 IIJA funds. Now that the FY 2022 final
appropriation is enacted, the IHS is taking $198 million provided in
annual appropriations for the SFC program into consideration in
finalizing the IIJA spend plan. Final decisions on FY 2022 IIJA funding
will communicated in a Dear Tribal Leader Letter.
Historically, IHS has received limited program support resources to
address the SFC project workload. SFC project funding has increased
since FY 2018, and the IIJA funding will significantly increase the SFC
workload. However, the IIJA limits funding for program support
activities to 3 percent per year. Given this limitation, it is possible
that the average project duration could be greater than the current
average project duration of 3.6 years. The IIJA also restricts program
support funding to federal activities, which means that Tribes that
operate their SFC projects directly cannot access these needed
administrative resources.
To address this need for administrative support, the FY 2023
President's Budget requests +$49 million in Facilities and
Environmental Health Support resources to support IIJA implementation.
This funding would be available for federal activities and to Tribes
who compact or contract under the Indian Self-Determination and
Education Assistance Act to implement SFC projects, unlike the
administrative set-aside in the IIJA. This investment is critically
necessary to maintain existing project completion deadlines and ensure
successful implementation of IIJA resources.
The IHS will leverage the use of multiple strategies and available
authorities to support IIJA recruitment and hiring, including the use
of global and open-ended job announcements to streamline the hiring of
multiple candidates for jobs across the IHS system, developing a
dedicated website to focus on the recruitment of these positions, and
targeting job fairs. The IHS will also explore compensation
flexibilities, like special salary rates and authority to approve
larger recruitment, relocation, and retention incentives. Such
incentives are necessary to increase IHS' competitiveness with both
private and public sector organizations.
We look forward to continuing our work with Congress related to the
SFC program and the use of IIJA funds to make improvements in tribal
communities. We are committed to working closely with our stakeholders
and we understand the importance of working with partners to address
the needs of American Indians and Alaska Natives.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Ms. Fowler.
Mr. Hess, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY HESS, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR FEDERAL
LANDS, FEDERAL HIGHWAY
ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Hess. Good afternoon, Chairman Schatz, Vice Chairman
Murkowski, and members of the Committee. Thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the
implementation of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act,
also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, especially as
it relates to Native communities.
It is my pleasure to appear here today beside my
colleagues, Mr. Wizipan Garriott of the Bureau of Indian
Affairs; Ms. Elizabeth Fowler of the Indian Health Service; and
Mr. Adam Geisler of the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration.
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law represents a once in a
generation investment in our Nation's infrastructure,
competitiveness, and communities. Under Secretary Buttigieg's
leadership, the department is hard at work implementing this
law. This includes historic and critical investments in tribal
transportation.
The Federal Highway Administration, under the direction of
Deputy Administrator Pollack, plays a vital role in this
implementation. We have a long history of deep collaboration
with tribes and I am proud of the relationships we have
fostered. Maintaining and strengthening these ties is key to
implementing this law successfully.
I would like to update you on a number of efforts we have
underway. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law dedicated historic
levels of funding for the Tribal Transportation Program, which
benefits all 574 federally-recognized tribes. Congress provided
over $3 billion over the next five years, including $578
million for this year, a 15 percent increase from 2020 levels.
The Federal Highway Administration implements this program
jointly with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, with whom we share a
close and productive relationship. We are currently working to
distribute Fiscal Year 2022 funds as quickly as possible.
Safety continues to be the department's top priority.
Tragically, Native Americans remain the group most likely to
lose their lives in car crashes. Dedicated safety funding
within the TTP more than doubled in the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law, giving us more opportunities to work
together to improve safety in tribal communities. Just this
morning, the Federal Highway Administration announced nearly $9
million in grants to 51 tribes to complete 58 safety projects.
We look forward to doing more with this new funding.
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law includes an unprecedented
investment in the Tribal Transportation Bridge Program
providing over $1 billion for the next five years, a 14-fold
increase compared to the FAST Act. This injection of funds to
build, replace and rehabilitate bridges will address a critical
problem. Nearly 11 percent of the bridges for the TTP funding
listed in the National Bridge Inventory are classified as in
poor condition.
Under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law for the first time
half of all funding under the Nationally Significant Federal
Lands and Tribal Projects Program is required to be awarded to
tribal transportation facilities. We plan to publish the 2022
Notice of Funding Opportunity soon. The Tribal High Priority
Projects Program will also receive funding for the first time
in over 10 years. This program will fund transportation
projects that may otherwise not be completed, including for
tribes experiencing emergencies or disasters that render
transportation facilities unusable.
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law can only achieve its
intended transformative effect if tribes can take full
advantage of these opportunities. To that end, the Federal
Highway Administration continues to prioritize the critical
technical assistance tools to help tribes plan, fund and
execute successful projects.
We are currently reviewing applications for almost $18
million in grants to reestablish and operate seven tribal
technical assistance program centers throughout the Country. We
look forward to standing up these new centers and continuing to
strengthen our vital relationship with tribes across the
Country.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you
today. I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hess follows:]
Prepared Statement of Timothy Hess, Associate Administrator for Federal
Lands, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation
Chairman Schatz, Vice Chairman Murkowski, Members of the Committee,
thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss
implementation of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, otherwise
known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), as it relates to
Native communities. The BIL represents a once-in-a-generation
investment in our nation's infrastructure, competitiveness, and
communities and provides approximately $550 billion in new Federal
infrastructure investment. This includes historic and critical
investments in Tribal transportation, including increased funding to
programs dedicated to Tribal needs and increased Tribal eligibility for
new and existing discretionary grant programs. The BIL also created the
new Department of Transportation (Department) Office of Tribal
Government Affairs, which elevates Tribal Government Affairs leadership
to the rank of Assistant Secretary within the Department for the first
time.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has a long history of
collaborating with Tribes efficiently and effectively, and I am proud
of the relationships we have fostered. Maintaining and strengthening
these ties is key to implementing the BIL successfully. I would like to
update you on a number of efforts we have underway, which will help in
achieving our shared goal of enhanced safety and improved
transportation for all Tribal communities. FHWA has also launched a
website with guidance on these programs and more, which can be found at
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bipartisan-infrastructure-law/.
Tribal Transportation Program
The Tribal Transportation Program (TTP) is the primary mechanism
for Federal investment in Tribal transportation projects. Through the
BIL, Congress provided more than $3 billion for TTP over the next five
years, including $578 million for fiscal year 2022, an increase of
nearly 15 percent from 2021 levels. The TTP funds projects to provide
safe and adequate transportation and public road access to and within
Indian reservations, Indian lands, and Alaska Native Village
communities. The program improves transportation for all 574 federally-
recognized sovereign Tribal governments and is jointly administered by
FHWA and the Department of Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA).
A majority of TTP funding is distributed based on statutory
formula, with set-asides dedicated to specific project types, such as
transportation planning, safety, and high priority projects. With the
enactment of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022, FHWA and BIA
are working together now to finalize calculation of the statutory
formula amounts and distribute the fiscal year 2022 TTP funding to
Tribes.
We look forward to working closely with Tribes in our ongoing
implementation of the BIL, investing in a range of infrastructure
projects that improve safety and mobility, create good jobs, protect
our environment, and build a foundation for lasting economic
opportunity in our communities.
Safety
Safety remains the Department's top priority and we are committed
to improving safety and reducing fatalities on Indian roads. Fatalities
on America's road continue to rise, with early estimates for the first
nine months of 2021 showing an increase of 12 percent compared to the
same period in 2020. Native Americans are more likely to lose their
lives in car crashes than any other group. Deaths in traffic crashes
among Native American and Alaska Native youth aged 0-19 are between two
and five times higher than they are for other racial and ethnic groups.
This is a crisis. We must improve transportation safety in Tribal
areas.
Several programs authorized in the BIL will facilitate necessary
investments in Tribal facilities and safety planning. FHWA is also
working in collaboration with the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) to identify best practices in Tribal crash
reporting as required under the BIL, to ensure that data surrounding
transportation safety in Tribal areas is accurate and comprehensive.
The Tribal Transportation Program Safety Fund (TTPSF) is dedicated
to preventing and reducing transportation-related injuries and
fatalities on Tribal lands. Funding for the TTPSF more than doubled in
the BIL, changing from a two percent set-aside from TTP funding to four
percent. For fiscal year 2022, this will mean $23 million of grants to
Tribes, up from $9 million in fiscal year 2021. Since the TTPSF's
inception in 2012, FHWA has awarded approximately $79 million in
competitive grants to 434 Tribes to develop transportation safety plans
and address safety issues on Tribal transportation facilities.
Historically, the amount of funding sought by Tribes has far exceeded
the amount available. The funding increase that Congress provided will
allow FHWA to fund more projects to improve safety in the coming years
as we work toward the Department's goal of eliminating deaths and
serious injuries on our roadways. FHWA plans to announce the TTPSF
awards for fiscal year 2021 very soon and is currently developing the
fiscal year 2022 notice of funding opportunity.
In addition to dedicated Tribal safety funding, safety projects on
Tribal lands are also eligible for funding under other programs. The
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) provides resources to achieve
a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on
all public roads, including on Tribal land. HSIP funds have been used
for several types of safety-related projects in Tribal areas, including
installing rumble strips and guardrails, improving safety signing and
pavement marking, removing roadway hazards, widening roadways, and
improving roadway surface friction. Safety projects on Tribal lands may
also be eligible under the Transportation Alternatives (TA) set-aside
of the Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) Program. For example,
Safe Routes to School projects on Tribal lands, which improve the
ability of primary, middle, and high school students to walk and
bicycle to school safely, are eligible for TA funding.
The BIL also created the Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A)
Program and provided $5 billion of funding over five years to develop
comprehensive safety action plans (CSAP); conduct planning, design, and
development activities for projects and activities contained in a CSAP;
or to carryout projects and strategies identified in a CSAP. Tribes are
eligible to apply for these funds and the Department hosted a pre-
solicitation outreach webinar specifically for Tribal governments on
April 28. The Department anticipates publishing the notice of funding
opportunity for this program soon.
Bridge Funding
The BIL includes an unprecedented investment in the Tribal
Transportation Bridge Program (TTBP), increasing funding by over 14
times the level authorized in the Fixing America's Surface
Transportation (FAST) Act (P.L. 114-94). This injection of new funds
will address a critical problem and could not come at a better time.
According to the 2020 National Bridge Inventory (NBI), nearly 11
percent (882 out of 8,060) of the bridges eligible for TTP Bridge
funding in the NBI are classified as in poor condition.
Tribes will receive over $1 billion over the next five years under
the TTBP primarily for new construction, replacement, and
rehabilitation of bridges. The BIL eliminated the three percent set-
aside from the TTP that funded Tribal bridge projects in the past.
Instead, funding for Tribal bridges is now drawn in part from a three
percent set-aside in the new Bridge Replacement, Rehabilitation,
Preservation, Protection, and Construction Program (Bridge Formula
Program), which received $27.5 billion over five years from the BIL,
the single largest dedicated bridge investment since the construction
of the Interstate highway system. Projects using these funds are
eligible for a 100 percent Federal share. Additional Tribal bridge
funding under the BIL is available from a set-aside under the Bridge
Investment Program, a new discretionary grant program.
To make it as easy as possible for Tribes to apply for and receive
funding to fix bridges, all of these funds will be administered under
the TTBP, regardless of their origin. For fiscal year 2022, a total of
$201 million will be available to Tribes under the TTPBP. Tribes can
apply for this funding at any time during the fiscal year and Tribes
with FHWA agreements can seek technical assistance in preparing the
application package from their tribal coordinators.
Additional Tribal Grant Programs
While the majority of TTP funds are distributed via statutory
formula, as discussed above, Tribes are also able to apply to several
grant programs to fund specific kinds of projects.
Nationally Significant Federal Lands and Tribal Projects Program
The Nationally Significant Federal Lands and Tribal Projects
(NSFLTP) Program provides funding for the construction, reconstruction,
and rehabilitation of nationally significant projects within, adjacent
to, or accessing Federal and Tribal lands. Pursuant to the BIL, for the
first time, half of all funding under the NSFLTP Program is required to
be awarded to Tribal transportation facilities. The law made other
changes that will increase the impact of this program in Tribal
communities. First, the minimum required project size was reduced from
$25 million to $12.5 million, opening the program up to a larger
diversity of projects and communities that may benefit. Second, Tribes
can now receive 100 percent Federal share of funding on their eligible
projects. Tribes can now invest their own transportation funding in
other projects, while still ensuring these larger projects are
completed. FHWA plans to publish the fiscal year 2022 notice of funding
opportunity for the NSFLTP that incorporates these changes soon.
Tribal High Priority Projects Program
The BIL established dedicated funding for the Tribal High Priority
Projects (THPP) Program. This program provides funding to Tribes whose
annual allocation under the TTP is insufficient to complete their
highest priority projects or to Tribes experiencing an emergency or
disaster that renders a transportation facility impassable or unusable.
The BIL marks the first time in over ten years that a program focused
on Tribal high priority projects has received funding, increasing
available Federal resources for transportation projects that may not
otherwise be completed.
Additional Discretionary Grant Programs
The BIL establishes more than a dozen new highway programs,
including numerous discretionary grant programs. Tribes are eligible
for many of these new grants, including these programs administered by
FHWA:
the Bridge Investment Program, to improve bridge condition,
safety, efficiency, and reliability;
the Wildlife Crossings Pilot Program, to support projects
seeking to reduce the number of wildlife-vehicle collisions;
the PROTECT Discretionary Grant Program, to fund projects
relating to resilience, including planning, improvements,
community resilience and evacuation routes, and at-risk coastal
infrastructure;
the Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Grant Program, to
deploy electric vehicle charging and hydrogen, propane, or
natural gas fueling infrastructure along designated alternative
fuel corridors and in communities; and
the National Culvert Removal, Replacement, and Restoration
Grant Program, to fund projects to remove, replace, or repair
culverts that would improve or restore passage for anadromous
fish, the notice of funding opportunity for which is planned to
be published this summer.
FHWA knows how critically important infrastructure funding is to
Tribal governments, and we are working to make these funding
opportunities available as quickly as possible.
Tribes are also eligible to receive funding under several other,
unprecedented grant programs funded under the BIL. In January, the
Department published a notice of funding opportunity for $1.5 billion
in grant funded through the Rebuilding American Infrastructure with
Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) Program. The application period for
that grant program has now closed. In March, the Department announced
$2.9 billion of funding for major infrastructure projects through an
innovative combined notice, which included: the National Infrastructure
Project Assistance (Mega) Program, the Infrastructure for Rebuilding
America (INFRA) Program, and the Rural Surface Transportation Grant
Program (Rural). Tribal governments and consortia of Tribal governments
are eligible to apply for all of these grant programs and applications
close on May 23.
The BIL also created the Reconnecting Communities Pilot Program,
which aims to restore community connectivity by removing, retrofitting,
or mitigating highways or other transportation facilities that create
barriers to community connectivity, including barriers to mobility,
access, or economic development. Congress provided $1 billion of
funding over five years, for which Tribes are eligible to apply. The
Department anticipates publishing a notice of funding opportunity in
June. Tribes are also eligible to apply for the Strengthening Mobility
and Revolutionizing Transportation (SMART) Grant Program created in the
BIL. These grants will fund demonstration projects to advance smart
city or community technologies and systems to improve transportation
efficiency and safety, while advancing other priorities such as climate
mitigation, resilience, and equity. Finally, Tribal colleges are
eligible to apply as grantees or otherwise partner with University
Transportation Centers (UTCs), which support state-of-the-art in
transportation research, enable technology transfer, and invest in the
next generation of transportation professionals.
Technical Assistance
The BIL represents a historic investment in Tribal infrastructure
projects. However, the law can only achieve its intended transformative
effect if Tribes can take full advantage of the funding opportunities
it provides. To that end, FHWA continues to prioritize the critical
technical assistance tools that help Tribes plan projects, identify
appropriate funding sources, submit successful funding applications,
and effectively execute projects. FHWA's Tribal Technical Assistance
Program (TTAP) has a long history of providing vital technical
assistance to Tribes in administering their transportation programs. In
January, FHWA published a notice of funding opportunity announcing
$17.8 million to re-establish and operate seven TTAP centers throughout
the country. These new centers will align with the BIA regions and
deliver valuable training and technical assistance resources with a new
emphasis on program management and project delivery. This notice came
after several years of significant consultations and outreach to
Tribes, Federal stakeholders, and national Tribal groups to reaffirm
how best to meet the technical assistance needs of Tribal communities.
While these new centers are being established, FHWA has expanded its
virtual training opportunities and increased support for Tribes through
remote programming. Applications for TTAP Centers closed on May 2.
In addition to the assistance provided through the TTAP, FHWA's
Office of Federal Lands Highway Office of Tribal Transportation
provides direct funding and technical assistance to approximately 124
federally-recognized Tribes that have signed program agreements with
FHWA. Each of these Tribes is assigned a Tribal Coordinator, who
conducts all stewardship and oversight activities, including providing
needed or requested technical assistance to help ensure each Tribe is
successful in administering their transportation programs and projects.
For example, the Tribal Coordinator will work with Tribes to prepare
and review an application package for the Tribal Transportation Bridge
Program and resolve any outstanding issues before submitting the
application.
The BIL also made improvements to the environmental review process
that applies to Tribal transportation projects. FHWA will ensure that
decisions required under the National Environment Policy Act for Tribal
transportation safety projects are made within 45 days, or as
instructed by Congress. Additionally, FHWA is actively working with BIA
to develop a template for programmatic agreements for categorical
exclusions that can be adapted for use by individual Tribes, as well as
further information and training to inform Tribes of their options
under the BIL.
Conclusion
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today. I
would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Hess.
Mr. Geisler, please proceed with your testimony.
STATEMENT OF ADAM GEISLER, DIVISION CHIEF, TRIBAL CONNECTIVITY
AND NATION TO NATION COORDINATION, NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS
AND INFORMATION
ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Mr. Geisler. Good afternoon, Chairman Schatz, Vice Chair
Murkowski and members of the Committee.
On behalf of Assistant Secretary Alan Davidson, I want to
thank you for the opportunity to testify about the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration's work on the
Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program.
My name is Adam Geisler. I am an enrolled member of theLa
Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians. I am speaking to you today from
the ancestral homelands of the Pay"mkawichum people where I
reside and work. I currently serve as the Division Chief of the
Tribal Connectivity and Nation to Nation Coordination Division
within the Office of Internet Connectivity and Growth at NTIA
where I assumed the newly formed career leadership position in
the Fall of 2021.
Living and working from my own indigenous community, I
experience the same challenges that many individuals within
different indigenous communities face when it comes to
affordable, reliable, high speed internet access. My own
community has struggled over the past two years in addressing
remote education, telehealth and even remote governance. As
each member of this Committee recognizes, broadband is no
longer a luxury but a necessity.
As a previous, three-term elected tribal leader, I have
long worked toward addressing the disparities within my own
community, including but not limited to broadband and emergency
communications. I therefore was thrilled when Congress passed
the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021, creating the
Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program, knowing it would begin
to address the broadband and digital needs of American Indians,
Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian communities in a way that
fits their unique needs and circumstances.
The Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program allows us to work
directly with eligible applicants on solutions they propose and
is the first of its kind for the targeted deployment of
broadband in tribal communities. NTIA hosted multiple tribal
consultations and listening sessions to better understand the
unique needs of applicants which informed the Notice of Funding
Opportunity prior to its release on June 3rd of 2021.
Once the Notice of Funding Opportunity was released, NTIA
held ten national webinars, participated in 55 national and
regional engagements and technical assistance workshops, and
our staff twice directly contacted over 350 tribal governments
known to be without qualifying broadband service twice to
ensure awareness of the Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program.
The outreach and technical assistance were conducted virtually
in the middle of an unprecedented global pandemic by an
entirely Native team here at NTIA. We are all well equipped to
recognize and help address the digital equity challenges faced
by applicants.
Our team recognizes this program was intended to help those
in greatest need obtain access to qualifying broadband service.
The hearing process to make sure applicants are complete is not
always fast, but is invaluable to the tribal communities. We
are building the capacity of Indian Country one applicant at a
time.
Over 450 tribal governments were represented in grant
applications which constitutes roughly 75 percent of the 574
federally recognized tribes, demonstrating a need to connect at
least 180,000 indigenous, unserved households. The original
Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program was nearly six times
over-subscribed with a total of $5.84 billion in requested
funding for projects and only $980 million available to address
the challenge.
To date, NTIA has awarded $6.5 million in grants to 15
eligible Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program applicants.
Today, NTIA announced an additional 19 awards totaling over $76
million in funding going toward broadband adoption use
activities. We are working toward to getting the remaining
funds out as quickly as possible.
NTIA is also working to deploy the additional $2 billion in
tribal funding as part of the Infrastructure Investment and
Jobs Act. We have already conducted two tribal consultations
regarding how this funding should be deployed. Consistent with
the statute, NTIA is also evaluating the possibility of
allocating some of the new $2 billion in tribal funding toward
qualifying projects under the Tribal Broadband Connectivity
Program, Round 1 Notice of Funding Opportunity.
In conclusion, Chairman Schatz, Vice Chair Murkowski and
members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
provide an update on the Tribal Broadband and Connectivity
Program. I look forward to answering any questions you may
have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Geisler follows:]
Prepared Statement of Adam Geisler, Division Chief, Tribal Connectivity
and Nation To Nation Coordination, National Telecommunications and
Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce
Miiyuyum (Hello), and good afternoon Chairman Schatz, Vice Chair
Murkowski, and Members of the Committee. On behalf of Assistant
Secretary Alan Davidson, I want to thank you for the opportunity to
testify about the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration's (NTIA) work on the Tribal Broadband Connectivity
Program. My name is Adam Geisler. I am an enrolled member of the La
Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians and speaking to you today from the
ancestral homelands of the Pay centsmkawichum people where I reside and
work. I currently serve in a career position as the Division Chief of
the Tribal Connectivity and Nation to Nation Coordination Division
within the Office of Internet Connectivity and Growth at NTIA where I
assumed the newly formed leadership position in the fall of 2021.
Living and working from my own indigenous community, I experience
the same challenges that many individuals within different indigenous
communities face when it comes to affordable, reliable, high-speed
Internet access. My own community has struggled over the past two years
in addressing remote education, telehealth, and even remote governance.
Broadband is no longer a luxury but a necessity, which I know every
member of this committee recognizes.
I served three terms and dedicated nearly a decade of my life as an
elected tribal leader of the La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians. I have
long worked toward addressing disparities within my own community,
including but--not limited to--broadband and emergency communications.
I, therefore, was thrilled when Congress passed the Consolidated
Appropriations Act of 2021 creating the Tribal Broadband Connectivity
Program, knowing that it would begin to address the broadband and
digital divide needs of American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native
Hawaiian communities in a way that fits their individual needs and
circumstances.
This program has created a new opportunity for partnership between
our communities and broadband providers. The approach that the Tribal
Broadband Connectivity Program allows us to take is that of working
directly with tribal governments, Alaska Native Corporations, Tribal
Colleges and Universities, tribal organizations, and the Department of
Hawaiian Homelands on solutions that they have put forward and is a
first of its kind for the targeted deployment of broadband in tribal
communities.
NTIA hosted multiple Tribal Consultations and listening sessions to
inform the development of the Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program
Notice of Funding Opportunity prior to its release on June 3, 2021.
This critical step helped NTIA better understand the unique needs of
tribes, and that understanding informed the development of the Notice
of Funding Opportunity.
After the release of the Notice of Funding Opportunity, NTIA held
10 national webinars, participated in 55 national and regional
engagements and technical assistance workshops, and our staff directly
contacted over 350 tribal governments known to be without qualifying
broadband service, twice, to ensure awareness of the Tribal Broadband
Connectivity Program. The outreach and technical assistance were
conducted virtually in the middle of an unprecedented global pandemic.
Undertaking such a substantial outreach campaign to Tribal communities
was key to ensuring that all eligible Tribal entities were aware of the
funding opportunity and how to prepare for it. It also is significant
that the outreach was conducted by an entirely Native team working for
NTIA on the Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program. Each member of my
team understands and has lived the realities of the digital divide in
their home communities. They are all well equipped to recognize and
help address the digital equity challenges faced by applicants to the
Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program.
NTIA staff have worked hard to launch this program, process
applications, and award grants. This process has included multiple
back-and-forths between NTIA staff and Tribal applicants to address
questions. I remind myself and my team that this program was intended
to help those in greatest need obtain access to qualifying broadband
service. Our job is not just funding broadband projects. We are
building the capacity of Indian Country, one applicant at a time. The
broadband deployment projects funded by the Tribal Broadband
Connectivity Program will build the infrastructure necessary for tens
of thousands of Tribal members to reliably access the Internet. The use
and adoption projects the program funds will provide Tribal members the
devices, skills and broadband services they need to engage in remote
learning, remote work, precision agriculture, telemedicine, and in
every other way become full digital citizens. The work we are doing to
make sure the applications are complete is not always fast but is
invaluable to the stakeholders and to the interest of all Americans who
have invested in their success.
Over 450 tribal governments applied for grants, which constitutes
roughly 75 percent of the 574 federally recognized tribes, with Tribal
Broadband Connectivity Program applicants demonstrating a need to
connect at least 180,000 indigenous unserved households. The original
Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program was nearly six times
oversubscribed with a total of $5.84 billion in requested funding for
projects and only $980 million available to address the challenge.
To date, NTIA has awarded $6.5 million in grants to 15 eligible
Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program applicants. Today, NTIA announced
an additional 19 awards--totaling nearly $77 million--in funding going
toward broadband adoption and use activities for Tribes in 10 states.
We are working to award the remaining funds as quickly as possible.
NTIA also is working to deploy the additional $2 billion in Tribal
funding as part of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. We have
conducted two Tribal consultations regarding how this funding should be
deployed and plan to conduct additional Tribal Consultations prior to
releasing a Notice of Funding Opportunity. Consistent with the statute,
NTIA is also evaluating the possibility of allocating some of the new
$2 billion in tribal funding toward qualifying projects under the
Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program round 1 Notice of Funding
Opportunity.
This program is life changing for so many Tribal communities.
In conclusion, Chairman Schatz, Vice Chair Murkowski, and Members
of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide an update on
the Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program. I look forward to answering
any questions you may have regarding the Tribal Broadband Connectivity
Program.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Senator Cortez Masto.
STATEMENT OF HON. CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
Mr. Hess, let me start with you. Thank you to all the
panelists.
Mr. Hess, in your testimony, you note that the Department
of Transportation is working to distribute $17.8 million to
reestablish and operate seven tribal technical assistance
program centers. I am so glad to hear that.
What are the current programs the TTAP centers offer for
assistance, focused on technical assistance, and will there be
a focus on building this capacity for tribes as communities
establish the seven new centers?
Mr. Hess. Senator, the Tribal Transportation Assistance
Centers already received applications and closed early this
week. We will be awarding those later this year. To answer your
question specifically, these centers focus specifically on
workforce development and capacity development within tribal
communities.
It has been a very popular program. We have recently
revamped it which is why we have gone out with a new NOFO.
These centers will focus on, it is administered out of our
office and will focus on workforce development and technology
transfer within the Federal Highway Administration. The focus
will be, again, on capacity development, technology transfer
and assistance to the tribes in developing capacity so they can
deliver their tribal projects.
Senator Cortez Masto. Mr. Hess, is there going to be any
assistance to the tribes to help them build capacity in grant
writing or for grant writing purposes at all?
Mr. Hess. Yes, Senator. That will be a key aspect. Under
the authorities made available to us under previous
authorizations and existing authorization, the Federal Highway
Administration can work with tribes and build capacity within
the tribes to assist them in preparing grant applications. This
is not the case with all of our stakeholders that we work with.
So, yes, to answer that question, we are working with
tribes. We will continue to work with tribes. Under the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, there are unprecedented
opportunities for tribes. We are fully aware of that.
The challenge the tribes have expressed to us at the
Federal Highway Administration is the difficulty of small
tribes applying for grant programs. Our goal at Federal Highway
is to make it as easy as possible to apply for a grant program
and then once the money is made available, to get it out as
fast as possible.
Senator Cortez Masto. That is great to hear. It is the same
thing I hear from the tribes in Nevada as well. That is good
news.
Mr. Geisler, I appreciate all that the Commerce Department
is doing to get these vital broadband dollars out the door
quickly to help our communities. The need for expanding
outreach and better transparency and oversight of Federal
broadband programs was behind the Bipartisan Act, the Broadband
Act I led in late 2020. The legislation actually established
the NTIA's Office of Internet Connectivity and Growth. Now I am
working to make sure that the Senate Appropriations Committee
appropriates the resources needed for these programs.
Can I ask you, I have a consortium of more than ten Nevada
tribes seeking funding from the Fiscal Year 2021 appropriations
Tribal Fund Program funding. Can I get an update on when you
will be complete in awarding this round of funding for my
constituents or any constituents?
Mr. Geisler. Yes, Senator. Thank you for the question. We
are targeting to have most of the consolidated appropriations
funding out the door by the end of spring of 2022.
Senator Cortez Masto. Wonderful. That is great to hear.
Thank you very much.
Finally, as I know my time is running out. Mr. Garriott,
the Water Smart Program under the Bureau of Reclamation
supports water conservation, something we understand so much in
the west, particularly in Nevada. It also supports water use
efficiency, the drought planning, water reuse to recycling.
Leaders in the tribal community have pointed to the 50 percent
non-Federal cost share for the Water Smart Program as cost
prohibitive for many tribes. My question to you is this. Would
the Department agree with this assessment from the tribes and
would it support the ability to waive this requirement?
Mr. Garriott. Thank you for the question. We have heard
that as well from many tribes across the Country that cost
share match requirements are something that oftentimes pose a
challenge. One of the things we are doing is really taking a
look at all of our programs to see what authorities we have,
statutory, regulatory, or really policy authorities to provide
as much flexibility to tribes as possible.
With regard to that specific program, I would not be able
to provide any details at this time but would be happy to
follow up with more specific program details.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. I look forward to that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cortez Masto.
Mr. Garriott, is $216 million enough to cover the cost of
climate resilience in Indian Country?
Mr. Garriott. We think the Bipartisan Law is a good start.
When we looked at the cost of community relocation, the BIA
conducted a study that was published and on our website 2020
looking at the cost in Alaska and the lower 48. Just to move
communities, the cost was $4.8 billion. So there is some work
to do.
The Chairman. Has there been a comprehensive assessment of
the cost of climate resilience? This isn't a criticism; it
isn't as though the rest of the government has done this.
Also, I think it is important to understand there are
probably three or four lines of effort, right? There is
community relocation, which is the most extraordinary and
expensive step, but there is also hardening of infrastructure,
being prepared for increasing severity and frequency of natural
disasters, there is dealing with drought and water shortages
and wildfires, floods and the rest of it.
Has there been this kind of comprehensive analysis so we
can get a number?
Mr. Garriott. We do not have a comprehensive analysis on
the hardening of infrastructure and the total need to really
build and ensure full climate resilience within Indian Country.
What we do know is that every year we do provide funding for
climate resilience planning and for projects. We currently have
a NOFO out for about $48 million worth of projects. Every year,
the number of projects and the funding amount far exceeds the
amount that we have available to spend.
The Chairman. Again, this is not a criticism but I do
believe there are resources at NOAA, National Weather Service,
and FEMA have that could be of use to you so you do not have to
invent and instrument. I also do not want to think of climate
resilience as always managed retreat, because that may not be
affordable, especially if climate impacts are essentially
across all 50 States and all of the territories. Where are we
retreating to?
Talking to FEMA about what it would look like to be a
little more disaster prepared, a little more disaster
resilient, I think, would be a good first step and not chew up
department resources while you try to develop expertise that
may exist somewhere else in the Federal Government. That is
just a gentle ask. I may follow up with a letter but if you can
do it without the letter, that is even better.
Mr. Garriott. We appreciate that. Our interagency
coordinator position as well as our current work with the White
House Council, I think, is a good start to continuing those
interagency conversations.
The Chairman. Does the department have any funding
resources to support Native Hawaiian climate resilience
programs?
Mr. Garriott. No specific set-aside programs, although
there is funding being tracked through our Office of Native
Hawaiian Affairs within the department. But no specific funding
set-aside.
The Chairman. I want to make sure I understand the answer.
I understand no specific funding set-aside. That is different
from saying Native Hawaiian programs are ineligible, is it not?
Mr. Garriott. There are some programs for which Native
Hawaiians can apply on a competitive basis.
The Chairman. Can you provide a list, in your view and the
views of department lawyers, of which programs Native Hawaiians
are eligible for and which would require sort of a statutory
change or a policy change?
Mr. Garriott. We would be happy to provide that list.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Geisler, Thank you for your testimony. I understand the
Department of Hawaiian Homelands submitted an application for
its 3 percent set-aside in the Fiscal Year 2021 Consolidated
Appropriations Act on August 31st last year, but the funds
still have not been issued. What is happening with the hold-up?
Mr. Geisler. Senator, thank you for the question.
All applicants must supply a complete application
consistent with the NOFO as we work through the process with
each of the applications. I continue to look forward to working
with the great State of Hawaii and the team you have as we work
towards getting Hawaii's funding.
The Chairman. I am sorry; I don't know what that means.
What's the hold-up? Are you telling me that their application
was incomplete or incorrect and you have to work with them to
get it right? I just don't get what you are saying.
Mr. Geisler. Senator, what I am saying is that the
applications that have been provided by all applicants have a
set of required documents and forms that need to be complete in
compliance with both the NOFO and also with our grants
guidance. As we work towards the completion of that
documentation, we can move applications forward in the next
step.
The Chairman. I honestly don't know what that means. I will
follow up directly with you. If necessary, maybe we can do a
little convening with the Department of Hawaiian Homelands and
see whether there is something that needs to happen to make the
application compliant with your requirements or more complete.
The law is the law. It is a 3 percent set-aside. It is not
unclear and I don't think the Department has a ton of
discretion. Obviously, the Department has to apply and apply
appropriately. But as long as they have done it, they get the
money because we enacted the law.
I will now turn it over to our Vice Chair. Thank you.
Senator Murkowski. [Presiding] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you to our witnesses here today.
Let me begin with you, Mr. Geisler. I am sorry I missed
your testimony as I was on my way to vote. That is the way it
is today. It is Wednesday.
I want to talk about technical assistance and coordination
because, as I mentioned in my opening, we all know this is an
area that going to be very, very key for everything, most
notably, in the broadband space. There was an additional $2
billion to the Tribal Broadband Program in the Bipartisan Bill,
but that grant funding is still oversubscribed. Is there any
update that you might be able to provide to the Committee on
how much of a shortfall for qualified, non-redundant applicants
or applications you think you have?
Mr. Geisler. Senator, thank you for the question. Also,
thank you for hosting the symposium that you did. It was great
to be able to meet so many of the stakeholders in the State of
Alaska and meet face-to-face.
With regard to the delta between the number of applications
we have received and the dollar amount, between the
Consolidated Appropriations Act and the IIJA, we have a
combined total of $3 billion available, yet we have been
oversubscribed with a total ask of $5.84 billion in requested
funding at this time.
Senator Murkowski. So there is a pretty big delta there in
terms of how we are going to meet that goal.
Another question that I heard, and perhaps you did as well,
and thank you for your participation in the symposium. The
concern that we heard was you have record inflation going on,
you have proposals that were submitted last summer, and they
will be awarded later this summer. You have a building season
in Alaska that is not year-round and can push things into 2023.
So there were concerns expressed from those who were
worried that we could look at cost overruns commensurate with
inflation and hoping they are not going to have their
applications penalized on account of this. Can you speak to
that at all?
Mr. Geisler. Yes, Senator, I can. I appreciate your asking
that question. I think it highlights why it is so important
that we go through the level of curing that we do just prior to
moving an application forward for final funding consideration
where that provides us an opportunity to work through some of
those inflationary or cost considerations that may have changed
when the applicant originally made their submissions.
I would also highlight that the program does allow for
contingency when we are looking at infrastructure deployment in
particular. It is a very roll-up-your-sleeves activity when we
engage with each of these applicants to ensure that the
successful deployment of these projects will occur.
Senator Murkowski. Then one last question, an important one
for me. It is the sustainability for some of these tribal
applications. We have some tribes, I think you recognize, that
have very few subscribers, so you are going to be in a
situation where tribes are going to be operating with limited
allowable administrative costs during the construction phase on
projects that don't have enough subscribers to return the
initial investment and carry those operating costs. What is the
plan for sustainability for these applications?
Mr. Geisler. Senator, great question. I think it is on a
case-by-case basis as we look at the solutions that each of the
applicants has proposed in terms of sustainability. That is a
primary topic of conversation we engage in with the applicant
as we conduct our curing and a component that we evaluate the
application for when we review them for funding consideration.
Our team stands ready to continue providing technical
assistance in helping to work through those barriers
collectively and into the future with the applicants.
Senator Murkowski. Great.
Ms. Fowler, let me ask you about, again, a pretty historic
opportunity to address much needed sanitation infrastructure.
We have dozens of communities that are still unserved, not
underserved. This is a two-part question. Do you agree that IHS
has the authority to fund the operation and maintenance costs
for sanitation systems?
Ms. Fowler. Yes, Senator, I do agree that we do have that
authority.
Senator Murkowski. Good. Now that the infrastructure law
has provided full funding for all of the sanitation projects
within the IHS sanitation deficiency system database, would IHS
be supportive of using part of its annual sanitation facilities
construction appropriation to then fund operation and
maintenance costs in communities that have very significant
need?
Ms. Fowler. Thank you, Senator, for raising that
consideration. It is something that IHS will consider. But we
have not received funding specifically for operations and
maintenance until now. We will have to consider----
Senator Murkowski. But you are not ruling it out?
Ms. Fowler. I am sorry?
Senator Murkowski. You are not ruling it out?
Ms. Fowler. We are not ruling it out, no.
Senator Murkowski. Then one last question for you, and I
will turn to my colleague, Senator Rounds.
You have stated in your testimony that the 3 percent
limitation on program support may mean that the average project
duration could be greater than the current average project
duration of 3.6 years.
Can you share how the 3 percent limitation will impact the
spend-out of the SFC program?
Ms. Fowler. Sure, thank you for the question.
As you noted, the IIJA provided for 3 percent of the funds
to be used for administrative purposes. They are limited to the
Federal program only. That means only IHS can use them for
administrative purposes, and tribes who manage their own
projects would not be able to access those administrative
resources.
We do believe that without additional program support, that
this will extend the project duration beyond the current, I
believe it is 3.6 years duration. We do believe that will
extend that by several years.
Senator Murkowski. If there is not a legislative fix on
program support, are there options that you are considering to
ensure these projects can be completed in a timely manner?
Ms. Fowler. We are exploring options including options for
tribes to access funding for administrative purposes. One
action that we have already taken is to include a request for
$49 million in the Fiscal Year 2023 President's budget request
in the Facilities and Environmental Health Support Account
which funds the people who are needed to work on the projects
to help us expand our capacity and to address that issue of
program support.
Senator Murkowski. Let me turn to Senator Rounds for any
questions he might have.
STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE ROUNDS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA
Senator Rounds. Thank you, Madam Chair.
First of all, thank you all for being here today. Mr.
Garriott, thank you for being here today. I am happy to see you
back here again. I had the opportunity to introduce you a few
months ago when you were first getting settled here in D.C.
My staff tells me that you have been tasked with looking at
some of the longstanding issues facing large, land-based
tribes. I was very happy to hear that because I do know that
you come from a very large, land-based tribe and you understand
some of the challenges that they face.
My question for you today is, if you could, coming from the
Rosebud and recognizing the challenges a land-based tribe does
have, could you share with the Committee an example of some of
the projects that you are working on or success stories you
have from time to time so far, that would be considered to be
of a helpful nature to some of our larger land-based tribes
back in South Dakota?
Mr. Garriott. Absolutely. Thank you, Senator. It is always
great to see you and see people from back home as we out are
here in D.C.
I think there are a number of examples. One example I think
is pertinent to today's hearing is in the BIL, the Department
of the Interior received a significant portion of funding for
water and sanitation and safety of dams. We are getting ready
to begin announcing later this month and throughout the coming
months various projects funded for the bill with regard to dams
and other projects. Of course we have a number of dam projects
throughout Indian Country including ones in South Dakota and
with many other large land-based tribes.
Additionally, another example I would point to is the
historic water rights settlements that have been announced,
particularly up in Montana with Salish Kootenai and others to
resolve some of these longstanding issues. Then of course, we
have the Department of Transportation here and I think they
would be able to address some of the longstanding road issues.
However, I would point to those two examples.
Senator Rounds. Thank you.
I would ask Ms. Fowler, the lack of adequate domestic and
municipal water is probably one of the greatest water resource
problems facing tribal nations. One many tribal lands,
residents must drive 40 miles or more every day or every few
days to haul water home for drinking, cooking, and bathing.
Many households on tribal lands are not good candidates for
centralized water systems because extending lines to low
density, geographically isolated areas is extremely expensive.
Chairman Frazier, who is going to be on the second panel
here today, is from the Cheyenne River Tribe. He knows full
well just exactly the challenges in trying to bring rural water
into the communities because he worked on a major one there in
the Cheyenne River region. They take a long time to get in and
take a long time to get set up. These particular areas where
you have this low density make it extremely challenging to
bring in good, clean water sources. Some of these households
out there right now are forced to rely on unregulated wells,
springs or livestock troughs to meet their daily needs, which
can be unsafe because groundwater is often contaminated.
IHS is one of the primary providers of community water
projects in American Indian and Alaska Native communities. IHS
has identified $3 billion in estimated costs for 1,580 water
infrastructure projects, including 112 in South Dakota which is
needed basically to address existing drinking water and
wastewater needs in its 2019 annual report to Congress on
sanitization deficiency levels for Indian homes and
communities.
Specifically, IHS determined that over 110,500 Native
households need some form of sanitation facility improvement.
Over 51,700 are without access to adequate sanitation
facilities and over 6,600 are without access to a safe water
supply system or a sewage disposal system.
My question: the IHS Sanitation Facilities Construction
Program will bring clean drinking water to tribes and tribal
members in South Dakota and across the Country. This program is
very important to the people in my home State of South Dakota.
There are, as I said, 112 water infrastructure projects
identified by IHS in our home State alone.
Could you provide an update for the Committee on how
implementation of this program is proceeding?
Ms. Fowler. Thank you for that question.
We are very excited and very appreciative of these
resources that IHS has received through the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act as well as our annual appropriation for
the Sanitation Facilities Construction Program. The biggest,
most significant piece about this funding is that the $3.5
billion will fund all of the projects that are currently on our
sanitation deficiencies systems list. That is really exciting.
As you noted, we have thousands of homes that are without
any form of clean water or safe wastewater disposal facilities.
We have more than 100,000 that require improvements. So as we
work to allocate these funds, we do anticipate and are very
excited about homes that have been without these facilities
having clean drinking water and having those safe sewer systems
for their homes.
Senator Rounds. I apologize. I gave a rather long question
so my time has expired.
Could I ask, would be able to provide the Committee a list
of where you are on some of these projects that are of the
highest priority or the prioritization you have done, just so
we can see the progress either being made or we expect to be
made in this next fiscal year?
Ms. Fowler. I would be happy to.
Senator Rounds. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Rounds.
Senator Lujan?
STATEMENT OF HON. BEN RAY LUJAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO
Senator Lujan. Thank you, Chair Murkowski.
I just want to join in on Senator Rounds, there, I also
have a big interest in that particular area and having an
update and inventory and letting us know where those projects
are as those improvements are being made. I want to thank you
for that as well. Thank you, Mr. Rounds, for that advocacy. To
my colleagues, I want to thank them for pulling this together
today for this important conversation.
One of the areas I wanted to focus some time on is, there
was an effort to elevate the tribal government affairs
leadership to the rank of Assistant Secretary within the U.S.
Department of Transportation. Then they did the right thing and
created the Office of Tribal Government Affairs.
One of the areas I continue to hear concern, though, is
from tribes and Pueblos in my State that they have not yet
connected with the Department of Transportation or had any
outreach with the Department of Transportation. As we all know,
the reason for this elevation is, when you don't know when you
are going to apply, what those details are, there is no
technical support, you get left out, not because there is a
good case to be made but because there is some assistance that
is needed.
Mr. Hess, yes or no, has the Assistant Secretary or staff
from the Office of Tribal Governmental Affairs conducted
proactive outreach to tribes yet?
Mr. Hess. Senator, within the Federal Highway
Administration, one of the hallmarks of our program is that
technical assistance be provided to tribes. Out of 574
recognized tribes, 130 of those have agreements with the
Federal Highway Administration.
We work closely with the Bureau of Indian Affairs to
provide technical assistance to tribes, specifically to develop
their transportation improvement plans, to build capacity and
to help them build capacity and expertise in not only being
aware of all the available funding opportunities, but to apply
for those funding opportunities.
As I mentioned in my statement earlier, our goal at the
Federal Highway Administration and the Department of
Transportation is to make it as easy as possible for tribes to
apply for funds and once they get the funds, to get them out
there as fast as possible.
So, yes, I have met with the Pueblo myself and will
continue the technical assistance and tribal engagement that we
saw under the FAST Act and will continue under the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law.
Senator Lujan. Mr. Hess, you said you met with one of the
Pueblos. Who in New Mexico have you met with and which of the
tribes and the Pueblos?
Mr. Hess. Senator, I can get back to you with the list. I
have been with Federal Highway about seven years now. Earlier
on, because we have so many tribes in that region of the
Country, I was down there early. I will provide you a list of
the tribes I met with in New Mexico. I will have to get back to
you with the list. I want to be accurate in my answer.
Senator Lujan. When you say you met with them early, was
that early in your seven-year term or early since the passage
of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law?
Mr. Hess. Early in my seven-year term, Senator.
Senator Lujan. Okay, so, we are here to talk about the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill, new money, new application.
While I appreciate meeting seven years ago, that does not help
anybody right now.
They may have a relationship but the reason this was so
important to all of us, and everyone here has an interest in
this, including the constituents we represent, is they need
support and help. That was the idea and that is my expectation
from this office. If it is different, I would like to have that
follow-up conversation.
What I don't want to see that Pueblos and tribes do not get
any money in New Mexico or qualify for any grants because they
didn't have that support or that technical expertise, or they
didn't have the heads up on where to get in front of this
stuff. That would surely, I think to all of us, be a major
disappointment if that exists in any one of our States. So I
look forward to following up with you as well. I don't know if
you have any follow-up. I look forward to following up with you
at a later point.
Ms. Fowler, you stated in your testimony that the increase
of the funds for IHS backlog will significantly increase IHS's
workload. Do you or does IHS currently have the capacity to get
this work done? Or is the staffing a barrier right now to
timely complete the sanitation deficiency system projects?
Ms. Fowler. IHS will need to build its capacity to
undertake these projects that will be funded with the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act funding. If we are not
able to procure additional resources for program support, then
we do anticipate that the project duration timeline will
increase from the current 3.6 average by several years.
Senator Lujan. Ms. Fowler, I think it is important for the
Committee to know what the staffing need would be in order to
complete these. These are important projects, life and safety
across indigenous sovereign nations across the United States. I
look forward to working with you and seeing how we can grow
that advocacy.
Madam Chair, I do have one other question on broadband. It
is for Mr. Geisler. I will submit that for the record and make
sure to get a response at a later time so I am respectful of
everyone's time today.
Thank you.
The Chairman. [Presiding.] Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just wanted to add to what Senator Lujan raised with Mr.
Hess about the Office of Tribal Affairs. It is something that I
think when we included that requirement to establish this
office, there is an expectation that we do have that level of
engagement and outreach. We have also recommended that other
departments do the same, including the Department of Treasury
that is increasingly becoming involved in tribal affairs. So
just for the record, I am putting that out there.
Mr. Garriott, you mentioned in your testimony this tribal
playbook document that is going to clarify and make magic all
these infrastructure opportunities for tribes. Hopefully, we
are going to be able to see that going live. Again, I just
wanted to put that out there. I know there is a great deal of
anticipation for that and for these types of resources.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Murkowski.
We will now thank and excuse our first panel of witnesses.
We appreciate your testimony today.
We will turn to our second panel of witnesses. Our first
guest to introduce is from New Mexico. Senator Lujan will
introduce him.
Senator Lujan. Thank you so very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Mark Mitchell of the All Pueblo Council of
Governors, who is part of the second panel today, is also the
former Governor of Tesuque Pueblo, and a well respected friend
in the community. It is an honor to be with you today, Governor
Mitchell.
For over 400 years, the All Pueblo Council of Governors has
gathered leaders from 20 Pueblos across New Mexico and Texas.
Its first recorded convening dates back to 1598. It has led the
fight in many major legislative, cultural, and government
issues, including strengthening infrastructure for Pueblo
communities.
Former Governor Mitchell began his tenure as Chairman of
the All Pueblo Council of Governors back in January of 2022.
After serving as Governor of Tesuque Pueblo six separate times
since 1993, Chairman Mitchell has also served on his Pueblo's
tribal council.
Outside of Chairman Mitchell's time and leadership, he has
worked with the Santa Fe Indian Health Service for seven years
in the Transportation Department, 10 years in law enforcement
as well, and he trained many leaders and police officers at the
New Mexico State Police Academy in Santa Fe back in 1994. He is
also currently the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer for
Tesuque Pueblo.
Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure today to honor and
introduce our friend, Governor Mitchell. I look forward to
hearing about the role New Mexico's Pueblos and tribes have
played in advancing infrastructure improvements for their
communities, especially in the wake of New Mexico's wildfires
and ways Congress and the Administration can support their
efforts.
I do want to extend my prayers for the safety and well-
being of your community, Mr. Mitchell, and every New Mexican
back home.
Thank you, Chairman Schatz. I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Lujan.
Senator Rounds, with his guest.
Senator Rounds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Today, I have the honor of introducing my friend, Mr.
Harold Frazier, the Chairman of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe
from my home State of South Dakota.
Mr. Frazier was born and raised in White Horse, South
Dakota, where he still resides today. For decades, Chairman
Frazier has worked diligently to improve the quality of life
for the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe.
During his two chairmanships, Chairman Frazier has played
an instrumental role in securing infrastructure funding for a
newer, more accessible nursing home, hospital, and transit
system. I might also add for rural water as well.
Chairman Frazier continues to be a strong advocate for
Native Americans on the local, State and the Federal levels.
Experiencing issues firsthand, Chairman Frazier's perspective
and testimony will provide great insight to life in Native
communities.
I want to take this opportunity to thank Chairman Frazier
for coming here in person. Getting here is no small task from
Cheyenne River in South Dakota. It is not just a long drive but
it is multiple flights as well back and forth. I most certainly
appreciate him for his patience and taking the time to come. He
is truly one of our real leaders in South Dakota as he does
everything he can to improve services for his people back home.
I look forward to his remarks.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
It gives me great pleasure to extend a welcome and aloha to
Mr. Garret Yoshimi, the Chief Information Officer and Vice
President for Information Technology at the University of
Hawaii based in Honolulu. There is no one in the State of
Hawaii who understands the deployment of high tech and
broadband infrastructure better than Mr. Yoshimi. We are very
pleased to hear from him today.
Senator Murkowski, for her panelist.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have somewhat introduced Ms. Nicole Borromeo who, as I
mentioned, is affiliated with the Alaska Federation of Natives.
She does an extraordinary job for them as its Executive Vice
President as well as General Counsel. She has been working
very, very hard to help Alaska Natives navigate through so much
of this and working to help distribute funds and providing
services.
I am just looking through a release that came out today
with regard to the tribal broadband applications. I think it is
noteworthy that the Alaska Federation of Natives is receiving
$35 million for their consortium application for 73 tribes.
That is quite, quite significant, and something I know that you
have worked on very much, Nicole, and that is a tribute to your
good work.
In her spare time this past year, she has been working on
the State's redistricting plan, no small initiative, and I know
you are glad to have that one behind you.
Thank you for your very generous work on behalf of Alaska
Natives and Alaskans everywhere. We appreciate you and we are
pleased to have you before the Committee today.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
I want to remind our witnesses that your full written
testimony will be made part of the official hearing record.
Please keep your statement to no more than five minutes so that
the members have time for questions.
We will start with Chairman Mitchell.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARK MITCHELL, CHAIRMAN, ALL PUEBLO COUNCIL
OF GOVERNORS
Mr. Mitchell. Good afternoon, Chairman Schatz, Vice Chair
Murkowski and other esteemed members of this Committee.
My name is Mark Mitchell. I am the former Governor of the
Tesuque Pueblo and currently the chairman of the All Pueblo
Council of Governors. Thank you for inviting me to speak today
on behalf of the pueblos and the greater Southwest.
We are delighted to see that this Congress' bipartisan
commitment to Indian Country has manifested in sweeping
investments in infrastructure that will begin to transform this
Nation.
First, we would like to offer some global remarks about the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. This law is more than 1,000
pages long. We need the Federal Government to improve the
technical support to tribes and Pueblos as we set out to
navigate the funding opportunities available through the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
Secondly, cost match requirements constitute additional
obstacles to accessing these desperately needed funds.
Third, tribes must have broad discretion to decide the best
use of funds in our communities and Indian Country. It is best
shared through non-competitive grants.
Fourth, the Federal Government must maximize its
flexibility to utilize existing funding mechanisms to expedite
distributions and ensure that the distributions are made on the
basis of need.
Finally, we call on the Federal Government to research ways
to help us leverage programs and funding throughout this
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. Fundamental to this, we need the
Federal Government to move in lockstep to contemporaneously
roll out these programs and streamline application procedures
so that we can effectively plan and allocate resources and pair
program dollars to enhance our project goals.
We look forward to the opportunities afforded by the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law's investment in rural sanitation
and water infrastructure. As you know, water projects are
fundamentally important to the Southwest.
We need to address our aging water systems, including
third-world water ponds that many of our pueblos and tribes
continue to be subjected to. We need to establish strong
regional water infrastructure now to help us safeguard our
communities from certain water insecurities and the health
impacts associated with an aging water system.
The pueblo irrigation systems are also among the oldest in
this Nation. A 2017 report entitled Irrigation Infrastructure
Report for the Rio Grande Pueblos was completed. We need this
Committee to encourage the Department of the Interior to sign
and release the report as well as appropriations and necessary
funding to support the report findings and recommendations.
These investments in water systems will also help us
sustain our life ways and mitigate the increasing wildfires.
These wildfires are now common in our region and threaten our
sacred landscape.
We applaud Congress' action to secure $216 million for
tribal climate resilience, adaptation, mitigation and community
relocation efforts, but you must know that this is not nearly
enough. The pueblos are situated in the hottest and driest
region of the Country. Because of climate change, we are
already facing hotter and more intense and more frequent fires
in our region.
We cannot afford for our climate to get hotter or our
traditional homelands will become incapable of human support.
We implore you to take further actions to fight global warming
and substantially invest in the communities that are guaranteed
to face the deadly consequences of climate change. The bill's
$500 million for Community Wildfire Defense programs is a much-
needed investment for our community and we eagerly await this
rollout.
As you know, the pandemic has highlighted how fundamental
access to reliable, high-speed internet is for all of us. The
Bill's sustained investment in broadband, if harnessed
correctly, has the power to finally permit Indian Country to
catch up to the rest of the Nation and to close the digital
divide.
We note that the Bill provisions alone will channel $2
billion to tribal governments for broadband deployment.
However, the first round of tribal connectivity broadband
funded only about $1 billion worth of projects despite more
than $5.8 billion worth of requests. Conservatively, Indian
Country still needs an additional $3 billion to investment in
broadband, assessing for inflation.
Finally, we stress that tribal governments must retain
certain authority over projects intended to serve Indian
Country. We also urge the States to collaborate and consult
with the pueblos and tribes for the State-led projects over
tribal landholdings.
We look forward to the funding for repairing and
maintaining our roads, bridges, bike and pedestrian
infrastructure, and transportation funds dedicated to improve
our children's commutes to and from school. We are also excited
about the Bill's investments in the Electric Vehicle Charging
Networks, particularly in rural communities. As one of the
sunniest regions in this Country, we see tremendous potential
to stimulate our economy through this program.
As a final note, we would like to encourage the Federal
Government to move away from funding tribal governments out of
appropriations from the General Fund. Frequently, tribal
programs are authorized, but funding is never appropriated.
Indian Country deserves more than such hollow promises.
In conclusion, again, I would like to thank you all for the
opportunity to testify before you today. I look forward to
working with you and to ensure that all of the needs of Indian
Country are met.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mitchell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Mark Mitchell, Chairman, All Pueblo Council
of Governors
Good Afternoon. My name is Mark Mitchell. I am the former Governor
of the Tesuque Pueblo and the current Chairman of the All Pueblo
Council of Governors. The All Pueblo Council of Governors represents
the twenty Pueblo Nations of New Mexico and Texas. Thank you for
inviting me to submit written testimony about this critically important
piece of legislation. I am encouraged that this Committee continues its
excellent work on behalf of Indian Country by proactively seeking
Tribal feedback on the implementation of the Bipartisan Infrastructure
Law to-date.
We are delighted to see that this Congress' bipartisan commitment
to Indian Country has manifested in a sweeping investment in
infrastructure that will begin to transform this nation. Strong
infrastructure is the cornerstone of a healthy local economy and robust
community engagement. Strong local infrastructure has the power to
raise people out of poverty through access to affordable public
transportation and reliable broadband Internet. By providing exemplary
water and sanitation systems, sustainable and local food pathways, and
state-of-the-art healthcare facilities, it has the power to lower the
rates of health issues like obesity, diabetes, and illnesses stemming
from exposure to toxic chemicals, heavy metals, and unsanitary living
conditions. Strong local infrastructure has the power to instill pride
of community in the minds of members who everyday battle racial
inequality, and who face higher than average rates of suicide,
substance abuse, and other negative health outcomes.
This infrastructure investment is also a necessary investment in
the future of our homelands. Land is critical to us because it is our
connection to the Creator. Land is where we harvest medicinal plants
and other important resources. Land is where we gain identity. Our
connection to place is at the core of who we are as Pueblo people.
First, we would like to offer some global remarks about the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. This law is more than 1,000 pages long.
We need the Federal Government to commit to providing technical support
to Tribes and Pueblos as we set out to navigate the funding
opportunities available through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, and
the technical requirements necessary under the soon-to-be promulgated
program regulations and reporting obligations. We need the Federal
government to invest in providing this technical support to us. To this
end, we want to thank this Congress for allowing States the latitude to
use up to two percent of Clean Water State Revolving Funds to award to
nonprofit organizations that provide technical assistance to small,
rural, and tribal publicly owned treatment facilities. \1\ Given the
breadth of Federal agencies responsible for carrying out programs under
the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, we expect a great variety in
compliance requirements and will need all of the technical assistance
we can get.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Build.gov, Building a Better America: Bipartisan Infrastructure
Law Rural Playbook, 10 (April 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These compliance requirements are legal and technical burdens on
our Tribal Governments. Many of us do not have dedicated grants
administration professionals on staff, and often we do not have the
budget to employ grant writers, contract professionals, or attorneys
for review of program requirements. It is paramount, therefore, that
the Federal government ensures that there are knowledgeable and
dedicated agency staff available to provide program application,
development, accounting, reporting, and other technical assistance to
Tribes throughout every phase of program administration.
Second, as we have testified before, cost match requirements
constitute an additional obstacle to accessing desperately-needed
funds. The Pueblos are already underfunded and our budgets are tight.
Most of our funds have already been earmarked for other necessary
services and approved by our governing bodies for those purposes.
Simply put, we do not typically have the agility to free up governance
funds to meet cost match demands of Federal programs. Where not
required by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, we urge you to ensure
that the implementing Federal agencies do not add any such burdens to
programs. Additionally, we hope that in drafting future legislation you
keep in mind the burden placed on Indian Country and choose to forgo
cost match requirements entirely.
Third, as many of our fellow tribal leaders have made clear, Indian
Country is best served when Tribes have broad discretion to decide the
best use of funds for our communities. This is a fundamental issue of
respect: respect for tribal self-governance and self-determination
under the law, respect for cultural traditions and indigenous
governance structures, respect for traditional indigenous knowledge and
practices, respect for our communities, and respect for our tribal
elders. Moreover, the Federal Government's adoption of a policy for
non-competitive grants would ensure that Tribes are not put in the
inappropriate position of competing with each other to secure funding
for critical services. Competitive grants unnecessarily foster strife
and resentment between the winners and losers of each funding cycle.
Fourth, as we learned through the CARES Act implementation, funding
of Indian Country must maximize flexibility within authorities and
utilize existing funding mechanisms to expedite distributions. Existing
funding mechanisms are essential to quick distribution of funds because
the mechanisms ensure that Federal agencies do not spend months
(sometimes years) crafting a distribution plan from scratch. In every
case, it is important that Federal agencies apply membership and
enrollment figures reported by Tribes themselves. Similarly, the
Federal Government must incorporate feedback we have given over the
years to move to a policy of maximizing flexibility within legal
authorities to ensure that our funds do not get unduly delayed by
simple bureaucratic procedural hurdles.
Finally, we stress today that the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
presents a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for our communities. We call
on the Federal Government to search for ways to increase our ability to
leverage programs and funds throughout the Bipartisan Infrastructure
Law. Fundamentally, we need the Federal Government to move in lockstep
to contemporaneously roll out these programs and streamline application
procedures so that we can effectively plan and allocate resources. We
need the ability to pair program dollars across agencies and programs
to enhance our project goals and maximize our return on investment. To
accomplish these efficiencies, we recommend that the Federal Government
create a master calendar to manage program application and reporting
requirements across agencies. Such a calendar would ensure that the
Federal Government implements programs at the same time, and would help
Tribes keep track of the dozens of deadlines, reporting requirements,
and reporting agencies.
As ever, we need all of this done, quickly.
Sanitation and Water Infrastructure
We look forward to the opportunities afforded by the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law's investment in rural sanitation and water
infrastructure. As you know, water projects are fundamentally important
to the Southwest. We are heartened by Secretary Haaland's creation of
the Drought Relief Working Group to tackle the issue of water
insecurity in the West and Southwest. \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Department of the Interior, White House Launches Drought Relief
Working Group to Address Urgent Western Water Crisis (May 9, 2021)
https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/white-house-launches-drought-relief-
working-group-address-urgency-western-water-crisis
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pueblo irrigation systems are among the oldest in this nation.
Addressing aging water systems, specifically the third-world sewage
ponds that many of our Pueblos and Tribes continue to be subjected to,
is an urgent need for our communities. Congress' decision to provide
Sanitation Facilities funding to the Indian Health Service to address
backlogged sanitation needs across Indian Country is an excellent
initial investment in this cause.
However, in 2017, a report entitled ``Irrigation Infrastructure
Report for the Rio Grande Pueblos'' identified nearly $280 million of
irrigation improvements needed on Pueblo lands. \3\ This report still
sits unsigned at the Bureau of Reclamation. We need this Committee to
urge the Department of the Interior to sign and release the report.
Moreover, we need appropriations for the $280 million worth of need
first identified in 2017, as well as funding to fulfil all subsequent
fiscal needs that have arisen as a result of aging systems further
breaking down, new environmental contamination issues, and inflation of
labor and materials costs over the last four years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Bureau of Reclamation, New Mexico Pueblos Irrigation
Infrastructure Improvement Project, https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/
NMPueblos/index.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We need your continued support for establishing strong regional
water infrastructure now. Regional water infrastructure will help us
safeguard our communities from certain water insecurities and health
impacts associated with our aging water systems. These investments in
water systems will also help us to sustain our life ways and mitigate
the increase in wildfires. Unfortunately, Tribes and Pueblos tend to be
the last communities to benefit from these regional projects. In the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, Congress committed to spend $160 million
on the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water System. \4\ Unfortunately, not a
single Pueblo is served by the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Senator Martin Heinrich, Heinrich, Lujan, Leger Fern ndez
Announce $160 Million in Infrastructure Funding for Eastern New Mexico
Rural Water System Pipeline (Mar. 31, 2022) https://
www.heinrich.senate.gov/press-releases/heinrich-lujn-leger-fernndez-
announce-160-million-in-infrastructure-funding-for-eastern-new-mexico-
rural-water-system-pipeline
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also urge this Committee to undertake all actions necessary to
ensure robust Federal water pollution control laws. The health of our
Pueblos hangs in the balance when far-away courts interpret water laws
to remove pollution restrictions on New Mexico waterways and divest
Pueblos of authority to block these projects. \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Susan Montoya Bryan, New Mexico tribes sue US over federal
clean water rule, Associated Press (April 1, 2021) https://apnews.com/
article/wetlands-deserts-environment-new-mexico-native-americans-
4d633a296e84ee66a0a97838c920ad41.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Climate Change
We applaud Congress' action to secure $216 million for tribal
climate resilience, adaptation, mitigation, and community relocation
efforts. But, you must know that this is not nearly enough.
The Pueblos are situated in the hottest, driest region in this
country. We cannot afford for our climate to get hotter--our
traditional homelands will become literally incapable of supporting
human life. Moreover, the heat is expected to exacerbate drought
conditions and threaten our already scarce water resources.
We implore you to take further action to fight global warming and
substantially invest in the communities that are guaranteed to face the
deadly consequences of climate change. Because of climate change, we
are already facing hotter, more intense, and more frequent wildfires in
our region. In 2016, the Union of Concerned Scientists reported that a
global temperature increase of 1.8 F would result in a projected 400
percent increase in wildfire-burned acreage in New Mexico. \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Union of Concerned Scientists, Confronting Climate Change in
New Mexico, 6 (April 2016) https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/
attach/2016/04/Climate-Change-New-Mexico-fact-sheet.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We cannot understate the threat that wildfires pose to our
community. Our communities are still cleaning up from the most recent
round of fires. As you may be aware, the Los Conchas fire destroyed
nearly 80 percent of the Santa Clara Pueblo's forested lands and has
prevented safe access to the Santa Clara Canyon, where many sacred
traditions are practiced. The Los Conchas fire also impacted many of
the Pueblos on the Jemez mountains, including Cochiti Pueblo, Jemez
Pueblo, and San Ildefonso Pueblo impacting their traditional cultural
practices. As with water resource issues, combatting wildfires requires
a regional approach. We need increased Federal willingness to enter
into cooperative and interagency agreements for wildfire mitigation
efforts--with Pueblos and Tribes as partners. Additionally, we know
that decreased participation in the mountains and in the north is
affecting atmospheric moisture and snowpack levels which, in turn,
affect the amount of water in our rivers. While the Pueblos have banded
together to address our local needs, we also need the cooperation of
our State, Federal, and local partners upstream. Finally, we need local
tribal members employed in Forest Service regional offices to hedge
against the high rate of staff turnover at the Service and to ensure
continuity of operations and transmission of institutional knowledge
when non-locally based staff leave.
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law's $500 million for Community
Wildfire Defense programs is a much-needed investment for our community
and we eagerly await its roll-out. We encourage this Committee to
consider making a similar yearly investment in such programs. This will
enable us to not only react to past events, but to build institutional
capacity to deploy preventative programs to reduce the frequency and
severity of wildfire events.
Broadband
As you know, the pandemic has highlighted how fundamental access to
reliable, high-speed Internet is for all of us. We need Internet to
work, to attend school, for virtual healthcare visits, and to stay
engaged with our communities. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law's
substantial investment in broadband, if harnessed correctly, has the
power to finally permit Indian Country to catch-up to the rest of the
nation and to close the digital divide.
The National Telecommunications and Information Administration's
Tribal Connectivity Broadband Program is an excellent start. The
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law's provisions alone will channel $2
billion to tribal governments for broadband deployment. However, the
first round of the Tribal Connectivity Broadband Program funded only
about $1 billion worth of projects, despite more than $5.8 billion
worth of requests. \7\ Conservatively, Indian Country still needs an
additional $3 billion investment in broadband, assessing for inflation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See National Telecommunications and Information Administration,
NTIA's Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program Receives More than 280
Applications, Over $5 Billion in Funding Requests (Sep. 8, 2021)
https://broadbandusa.ntia.doc.gov/news/latest-news/ntias-tribal-
broadband-connectivity-program-receives-more-280-applications-over-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We were relieved to see that the United States Department of
Agriculture's ReConnect Program will waive matching fund requirements
for Tribes. \8\ Additionally, we applaud Congress for securing a $75
per month credit for Internet services on Tribal lands under the
Affordable Connectivity Program. \9\ This credit will be instrumental
for communities with higher-than-average connectivity costs--typically
rural communities with unestablished or under-established broadband
infrastructure. Together these two commitments will go a long way
toward meeting the Administration's goal of providing high speed
Internet to every rural home and business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Build.gov, Building a Better America: Bipartisan Infrastructure
Law Rural Playbook, 2 (April 2022).
\9\ Id. at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In all broadband programs it remains vitally important that tribal
governments retain authority over projects intended to serve Indian
Country. All too often States do not view Pueblos and Tribes as
partners in deploying broadband capabilities. To this end, we urge
States and the Federal Government to consult with Pueblos and Tribes
for State-led projects over tribal landholdings. Furthermore, we need
protection to guarantee tribal priority within priority broadband
windows to eliminate the incidence of Tribes competing with non-tribal
entities.
Transportation
We are thrilled to hear that the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
established a fixed percentage for Public Transportation on Indian
Reservations. We are always in need of assistance with maintaining our
roads and we welcome all operational support that the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law provides. Similarly, we look forward to accessing
the Law's program funds for repairing our roads, bridges, bike and
pedestrian infrastructure, and transportation funds dedicated to
improving our children's commutes to and from school. \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Surface Transportation Block Grant Program; Rural Surface
Transportation Grant Program; Rebuilding America's Infrastructure with
Sustainability and Equity (RAISE); Clean school bus program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are also excited about the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law's
investment in an Electric Vehicle Charging Network, and the Law's
particular commitment to developing the Network in rural communities.
As one of the sunniest regions of the country, we see tremendous
potential to stimulate our economy through this program. Moreover, we
will be proud to introduce these charging stations into our
communities, fueled by clean and local solar power. As you know,
protection of our lands and of our Earth is vitally important to our
Pueblo cultures.
As a final note, we would like to encourage the Federal Government
to move away from funding tribal programs out of appropriations from
the General Fund. Frequently, tribal programs are authorized, but funds
are never appropriated. Indian Country deserves more than such hollow
promises.
Conclusion
Once again, I would like to thank you all for the opportunity to
testify before you today. I look forward to working with you to ensure
that all of the needs of Indian Country are met.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Chairman Mitchell.
Mr. Frazier, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF HON. HAROLD FRAZIER, CHAIRMAN, GREAT PLAINS TRIBAL
CHAIRMAN'S ASSOCIATION
Mr. Frazier. Thank you. I want to begin by saying thank you
to Senator Rounds for his introduction. You truly are a friend
to our people. Thank you.
I am honored to be here today. I am Chairman of the Great
Plains Tribal Chairmen's Association which consists of North
Dakota, South Dakota and Nebraska. I am also Chairman of the
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe.
I want to start by saying our connection with the Federal
Government is based through treaties, the 1851 and 1860 Ft.
Laramie Treaty. We believe in our treaties and feel these
treaties must be upheld.
One of the things I want to talk about is roads. That is
one of the biggest issues in our region, roads and the
condition of our roads. On our reservation, we have 350 miles
of BIA roads and only 14 miles is paved, 14 miles, that is it.
A lot of our school buses, ambulances, our people, a lot of our
roads we have to travel on is all gravel, 40 miles one way, 50
miles back the same way.
One of the biggest problems that prevents us from having
good, safe roads is the funding formula. That formula was
developed in 2012 and has really a bad, negative impact on a
lot of our tribes in our region.
I will give you an example, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe
has 350 miles of road, BIA roads. We get $2.2 million a year.
When you look at a tribe like the Nebraska Ponca, .2, not even
a quarter of a mile roads, and they get $3 million. Right there
shows that the formula is flawed.
The government's solution is grants. It was interesting to
hear, there was a question about small tribes not benefiting
from grants. I can tell you the large land-based tribes aren't
either. So who is benefiting?
One of the main requirements is having these roads shovel-
ready, these projects. We don't have a casino. The tribes in
our region that do have casinos have them in bad locations, so
we are not wealthy tribes at all.
So when we have to do a cash-match, we have to use our TTP
funding. Right now, from what we are hearing, we are not able
to do that. We want to be able to use and apply for design
costs. To give you an example, it is about 8 percent to design
a road project. So if we submitted a $100 million grant, we
want to be able to submit a $108 million grant so you can pay
for the design. If not, then we on Cheyenne River will have to
wait four years, not doing anything, to get that $8 million
utilizing our TTP funds.
It is not a good requirement to have all these projects
shovel-ready. You guys are more than welcome to come to our
lands, our reservations and truly drive our roads.
Looking at IHS, I know they got $3.5 billion. That is
awesome and I thank you for that. But one of the things that
need to be changed or allowed is to be able to utilize some of
these funds for development. Our housing authority, for
example, is trying to build a cluster site but they are not
able to use this money because it is only for deficient
systems, existing systems. There is nothing for development.
So what do we have to do? We have to use our own housing
authority funds to put in the infrastructure. That takes away
houses that we could have used, that it was intended for but,
no, we have to not build a certain number of houses so we can
put in the infrastructure. That is one of the things.
When we looked at the Interior funding that is there, it
totally ignores the treaties. There is nothing for education,
nothing for law enforcement, nothing for roads in the Interior.
There is no infrastructure dollars for that.
Another thing is as we were discussing it back home, it
really looks like a lot of the funding that Interior has is to
pay old debt for the government, clean up abandoned wells that
have been abandoned for a number of years or an orphan well.
What about today and then for the future?
Hopefully, we can get some changes to where we can access
some of that funding for infrastructure today. In the area of
education, we need schools.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Frazier follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Harold Frazier, Chairman, Great Plains
Tribal Chairman's Association
Chairman Schatz, Vice Chairman Murkowski and Honorable Members of
the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, I am Harold Frazier and I serve
as both the Chairman of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of South Dakota
and as the President of the Great Plains Tribal Chairmen's Association
(GPTCA). The GPTCA is the coalition that represents all the Tribal
Chairmen and Presidents of the 16 federally recognized tribes in the
states of North Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska. We represent some
of the largest reservations and largest populations of Indian people
found in the United States. Unfortunately, our tribes also constitute
some of the most impoverished tribes and populations of people found
anywhere in this country.
For these reasons, we are pleased that the leaders of the Senate
Committee on Indian Affairs have asked a representative of the GPTCA
for testimony at today's hearing. I am glad to see that the Committee
has invited a diverse group of tribal witnesses for this hearing. The
large land-based tribes of the Great Plains region represent a
traditional perspective from the heart of Indian county.
I would also like to recognize Senator Mike Rounds, for his years
of partnership and advocacy for South Dakota's tribal nations.
Your invitation asked that I testify on the Implementation of the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (often referenced as the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law or BIL), from the perspective of Native
Communities.
While I believe I would be safe in saying that all of Indian County
appreciates the advocacy that the leaders and members of this committee
played in securing significant funding increases for Indian tribes in a
number of the broader programs authorized by the BIL, it is likely
still too early to say how it will ultimately impact tribes because the
implementation of it at the federal departmental and agency level is
still ongoing and in at least one case, the appropriation to implement
a key section of the bill for the tribes I represent, fell far short of
the amount authorized by the BIL.
Roads Funding
One of the reasons why we have such rampant poverty among most of
the Great Plains tribes is because our reservations are still lacking
in the most basic of infrastructure, not the least of which are roads.
On the Cheyenne River Reservation for example, a large reservation of
over 2.8 million acres, only 14 miles of the BIA and Tribal Roads are
paved. At 2.8 million acres, our land base is larger than the state of
Rhode Island and in between the size of Delaware and Connecticut. While
some state and county roads are paved, they only constitute a small
fraction of our total roads. Our people when they travel for work or
other reasons, our children when they are in school buses and those
residents in need of emergency response must deal with gravel and dirt
roads that at best, tear up our vehicles and at worst are regularly
flooded or so poorly maintained that they can be impassable. Honorable
Committee members, how can we ever attract businesses and create good
jobs when this most basic component of infrastructure is lacking? While
we were pleased to see that the BIL increased the authorization for
funding for BIA Road Maintenance up to a level of $50 million in 2022,
escalating to $58 million in FY 2026, that is still a fraction of what
is needed as BIA roads alone have a backlog of over $300 million to get
them to an ``acceptable'' level of safety. However, even the $50
million amount was not appropriated. The recently enacted FY 2022
Interior spending bill only increased BIA road maintenance funding from
$36.8 million to $37.4 million. By the BIA's own admission, only 13
percent of the roads in Indian County are in good to excellent
condition. A few years ago, the BIA said 16 percent of their roads
qualified as good to excellent, so we are losing ground!
The BIL authorized an increase in the Tribal Transportation Program
(TTP) at the Department of Transportation via the Highway Trust Fund
(HTF), but those funds are allocated via a formula that is so broken
that most of the tribes in the Great Plains benefit very little from
it. At Cheyenne River, we get $2.2 million a year in TTP dollars--this
is the same amount we have gotten the past 12 years despite significant
funding increases going to the TTP. In 2021 the TTP was funded at $505
million. By comparison in 2019 Delaware received $186 million in HTF
dollars. Since our reservation gets so little from the BIA Road
Maintenance program a year (about $500,000) we must dip in our TTP
dollars for basic maintenance to the 25 percent maximum allowed
($600,000) which leaves $1.4 million in TTP dollars remaining for road
construction, not enough to allow us to undertake any of the critical
road construction projects we have identified. So where does all the
TTP money go, including the BIL increase? To those tribes who included
state and county roads in their National Tribal Transportation Facility
Inventory (NTTFI) including off-reservation ``access'' roads or
``proposed'' (aka ``ghost'') roads. While I am sure the states and
counties appreciate the subsidy they get from this program, those roads
are eligible for state and county dollars. BIA and Tribal Roads have no
other sources of funding. When federal dollars intended to benefit
tribes are abused in this fashion, you can see the result. We could
endeavor to place more roads in our NTTFI but it would be to no avail
as the TTP formula is frozen since 2011 and will not generate more
funding for us even if we could add those miles.
We are hopeful that the increase in bridge funding in the BIL will
benefit tribes in our region and that could really happen if tribes
could use some of the bridge funding for bridge maintenance. It is not
clear to us whether that would be allowed. We are also hopeful that we
can use our TTP funds as matching funds for some of the programs
created or funded by the BIL, such as the Safe Streets and Roads for
All program, but last week we heard that we might not be allow use TTP
funds as a match. We don't have a casino (or 10 casinos as does a tribe
in Oklahoma with no BIA or Tribal roads but who still gets six times
the TTP funds that we do), so where do we come up with matching funds?
We have just written the Secretary of Transportation asking that he use
his discretion to allow us to use federal funds to match some BIL
programs. The High Priority Projects Program should be used for
projects deemed to be an emergency and should not be reserved
arbitrarily for tribes who get less than $1 million a year in roads
funds. The DOT should also use its discretion and ensure we can use
bridge money for culverts that essentially act as small bridges on our
roads and that are now aged, falling apart, and washing away, causing
very dangerous situation on many of our roads.
Tribes often seem to be caught in a catch 22 when DOT only
considers shovel ready projects as eligible for its discretionary grant
programs. This precludes many Tribes from even applying given the
significant design and planning costs involved in preparing a
competitive application. We need more flexibility--DOT should allow
Tribes to use grant funds to cover costs for pre-construction
activities including design and planning. TTP and other federal funds
should always be allowed for Tribes to use toward their match
requirements. These types of flexibility are especially critical for
giving Tribes a fair shot at grant that could help us tackle our
largest projects including the Rebuilding American Infrastructure with
Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) program and the Mega Program (known
statutorily as the National Infrastructure Project Assistance program).
Water Infrastructure
As you might imagine, with a 2.8-million-acre reservation in a
remote area with a harsh climate, we face many challenges in providing
a safe and reliable water supply to our people. With help from several
federal agencies and support from the South Dakota Congressional
delegation over the years, we were able to complete a large project
that is bringing water from the Missouri River (Lake Oahe) through an
intake system then through an untreated water line, a water treatment
plant and then a treated water line. This system is, at long last,
delivering potable water to the town of Eagle Butte, which is the
largest town on the Reservation and the location of Tribal headquarters
(as well as other federal agency offices). The next step is to expand
the delivery system to other towns and communities around this large
Reservation, we are working on building distribution lines to get water
from Eagle Butte north to Timberlake and west to Faith in Meade County.
We have gotten some funding through grants and loans from USDA-Rural
Development to help build the system north to Timberlake, but still
need nearly $55 million to complete the distribution system to our
western border. Beyond this, additional funding will be needed to run
water lines to individual homes and businesses. Many of the Great
Plains Tribes have water projects of similar scale awaiting funding.
While there is funding for water programs at several agencies in
the BIL, it is challenging for us to access and utilize this funding
when each agency has different requirements on allowable uses, cost
sharing and more. An additional challenge in pursuing new housing and
other community development projects, are onerous requirements such as
the long-standing prohibition on using Indian Health Service Sanitation
Facilities Construction funds to hook up new homes constructed with
funding through the Indian Housing Block Grant program at HUD. This
needless prohibition is stifling housing development. While we are
pleased that the BIL includes $3.5 billion at the IHS for domestic and
community sanitation facilities, and this will help us complete several
small projects at Cheyenne River that have been awaiting funding for
years, we would urge both the IHS and Congress to provide more
flexibility to allow these funds to cover new development projects and
not just those projects that are already identified on the existing IHS
Sanitation Deficiency System (SDS) inventory. We hope that as agencies
make funds available to Tribes they provide us the utmost flexibility
to utilize funds for our unique water needs and to waive cost-sharing
and other requirements to the maximum extent allowed.
Climate Resiliency and support for drought relief programs
2021 presented one of the worst droughts in recent memory on the
Cheyenne River Reservation and many of our neighbor tribes are facing
similar conditions. According to the U.S. Drought Monitor, CRST was in
a D3 drought (Extreme Drought) for most of the year. So far 2022 finds
us to be in the second driest year we have experienced over the last
128 years. This presents immense challenges for the agriculture
industry, which is the primary economic driver on our reservation.
These current and extended drought conditions have presented two major
problems for our producers. First, the lack of moisture has eliminated
the ability to graze animals and our producers have been forced to
provide high-cost feeds to their cattle and horses to get them through
the winter, forcing some to sell their herds. Second, is a lack of
available water for livestock to drink. Stock dams are extremely low or
completely dry making it impossible to utilize grass when it is
available. This situation leaves our Tribal producers struggling to
gain some stability and profitability given the drought and it
compounds challenges they already face due to predatory lending
practices and volatility in the markets. If relief is not brought soon
many of our cattle ranchers will face the threat of sell downs and sell
outs.
To help remedy this situation we have identified the need for over
$32 million in funding to combat the drought and provide relief to our
native producers and help save our economy. This includes $21 million
for feed assistance including hay, grass, and corn and $11 million for
water assistance to extend pipelines and install water tanks. Due to
the remote nature of our reservation hauling water to large cattle
herds is ineffective and inefficient. We also request that all relevant
federal agencies, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the
Bureau of Indian Affairs take any and all necessary measures, including
emergency water assistance for pumping water into stock dams or
extending water lines off of existing water sources, as well as
providing reimbursement for costs such as feed purchases and livestock
transportation to feedlots to help sustain our producers.
While the BIL includes $216 million in funding at the BIA for
Tribal Climate Resilience and Community Relocation, we ask that the
agency put the needs of Tribes addressing drought conditions on par
with those utilizing other aspects of the Resilience funding. We would
also request that Interior, USDA, and other relevant agencies work
together to make BIL funding available to Tribes to address drought in
an accessible manner.
Funding for infrastructure needs not included in the BIL
While the BIL includes a broad array of funding for infrastructure
programs at agencies across the federal government that tribes
appreciate, there are a few areas I would like to highlight that did
not receive funding in the BIL despite urgent and significant needs in
Tribal communities. Perhaps if there is further legislation this year,
the Committee may want to advance these as priorities.
Housing
At Cheyenne River we have identified the need for at least 700 new
housing units to be constructed to ensure that all our citizens have a
safe place to live. In a 2017 report the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) found that ``the lack of housing and
infrastructure in Indian Country is severe and widespread, and far
exceeds the funding currently provided to tribes.'' Unfortunately, the
main source of federal funding for Tribal housing, the Indian Housing
Block Grant (IHBG), has been mostly level-funded for the past 20 years,
failing to even keep pace with inflation while housing needs continue
to increase. The IHBG relies on an outdated formula that severely
undercounts our population, robbing us every year of critical housing
funds. The 2017 HUD report identified an immediate need for 68,000
units of new, affordable housing in Indian Country to replace
substandard or overcrowded units. The unique status of trust land
creates additional obstacles for our housing authority and citizens to
access traditional mortgage products and financing for housing. While
we appreciate the work of Chairman Schatz to increase funding for
Native housing this year through his role leading the Appropriations
subcommittee that oversees HUD funding, we would urge you to work to
pass additional infrastructure legislation that provides supplemental
funding to update existing housing and construct new housing on tribal
lands.
Bureau of Indian Education schools
More than 85 BIE funded schools across the country are in poor
condition. 24 of these schools are in the Great Plains region. Our
Cheyenne Eagle Butte School (CEB), which is operated by the BIE and
serves students in grades kindergarten through 12, is in desperate need
of being replaced. The facility is over 60 years old and as early as
1993 the BIE has said that the school was unsafe and unfixable. Simply
put, the school is crumbling and presenting a danger to our children,
educators, and staff. Our children often attend school in the winter
with heavy jackets on due to a deficient and malfunctioning heating
system which results in many classrooms having a temperature below 50
degrees. Mold is a major health concern at CEB as it continues to grow
in latent areas and there is also asbestos exposure due to failing
walls, floors and ceilings and cracks in the foundation. There is also
unrepaired water damage from flooding and leaking in the roof which
results in dangerous electrical hot spots. The inadequate electrical
system has prevented us from placing any additional computers in
classrooms--this denies our students access to the technology that is
needed to succeed in the today's workforce. While we are currently
working with the BIE on plans and identifying funds for a replacement
school, with so many BIE schools in poor condition and only $264
million provided for BIE construction nationally in FY 2022, it will be
decades if not longer before ours and other schools are replaced.
Therefore, we would ask you to pass additional infrastructure funding
for school construction.
Public Safety and Justice
In 2018, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights' Broken Promises
report found that there continues to be ``systematic underfunding of
tribal law enforcement and criminal justice systems, as well as
structural barriers in the funding and operation of criminal justice
systems in Indian Country'' that undermine public safety. The
Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that lack of detention
space may force tribal courts ``to make difficult decisions such as (1)
foregoing sentencing a convicted offender to prison, (2) releasing
inmates to make room for another offender who is considered to be a
greater danger to the community, and (3) contracting with state or
tribal detention facilities to house convicted offenders, which can be
costly.''
The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal Court System is housed in two
buildings located approximately one mile apart. The Juvenile Court is
housed with the Tribal Criminal Court and shares a courtroom. As a
result, often hearings must be held in the Judge's chambers, or
rescheduled due to lack of space for hearings. In addition, staffing
shortages in the current budget are exacerbated by the separate
locations. Further compounding the issues and budget constraints facing
the Justice system, the Prosecutor and Public Defender are housed in
mobile homes located within walking distance of the criminal court.
During the frequent winter conditions, this results in higher utility
costs with so many different buildings to maintain, and heat, and in
lost time travelling between buildings.
The original Civil Courthouse is the original jail constructed at
Cheyenne River in the 1950s. It is deteriorating. It lacks sufficient
storage space for records, and utility costs are very high. It only
allows for one courtroom. The more recently constructed criminal court
and criminal and juvenile court facilities were constructed over three
decades ago when caseloads were less than half of what they are now.
The tripling of drug related arrests in recent years, has left our
courts unable to even schedule hearings timely let alone hear cases due
in part to the inadequate facilities. With a caseload of over 5,900
annually our court facilities are simply unequipped to keep up.
Like the Courthouses and Prosecutor and Public Defender facilities,
our Walter Miner Law Enforcement Center housing all detention
facilities and the law enforcement department is simply inadequately
sized to meet the needs of the current population, and law enforcement
staffing. It was originally built over 35 years ago, with capacity to
house 45 adults and 10 Juveniles. However, with annual arrests for drug
related offenses alone exceeding 900 in 2016, the detention facility is
wholly inadequate to protect public safety, and the safety of those
detained in the facility. In one five-month period alone in 2016--2017
there were 29 violent crime arrests including on homicide, 26 drug
related arrests, and 26 DWIs. In addition, the facility lacks modern
secure evidence storage facilities, and inadequate workspace for
officers to complete reports or to meet. With the explosion of serious
methamphetamine use and distribution, and increase in violent crimes
associated with this problem, the law enforcement facilities have not
kept pace with the needs of the community. Tragically, in recent years
there have been several drug related homicides involving multiple
suspects.
To address this need, and to ensure that the Tribe can provide
safety for our people across the reservation, a modern Judicial and
Justice center is needed. Our plans for this include 28,000 square feet
of space to house our courts, prosecutor, and public defender offices
and 90,000 square feet for new facilities housing detention and law
enforcement. We estimate that the cost to construct this new justice
complex to be around $35 million, underscoring the need for large
investments in tribal public safety and courts infrastructure.
In conclusion, one issue I would like to address is the funding
formulas through which we see much of our infrastructure funding flow.
Many of these formulas are outdated and have been manipulated over the
years in a fashion that has been detrimental to large land-based
tribes. The committee should take a hard look at this and devise
policies that distribute funding in an equitable manner based on true
need and current and agreed on data.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today on these
critical issues and I look forward to answering any questions you may
have.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Frazier.
Mr. Yoshimi, please proceed with your testimony.
STATEMENT OF GARRET YOSHIMI, CHIEF INFORMATION
OFFICER/VICE PRESIDENT, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF
HAWAII
Mr. Yoshimi. Good afternoon, Chair Schatz, Vice Chair
Murkowski and members of the Committee.
Chairman Schatz, thank you very much that generous
introduction. I will attempt to do my best to live up to the
introduction. Thank you most of all for allowing me to testify
remotely. Good morning from Honolulu.
We definitely look forward to the Committee providing an
opportunity to hold hearings in person in Honolulu in a few
weeks. We look forward to having all of you folks visit us here
in Hawaii.
I will highlight key points from my testimony in the hope
of helping folks understand our distinctive plans in our multi-
island State to ensure that every resident can access the
benefits of robust broadband access in support of essential
education, health, civic society and economic vitality.
My team at the University of Hawaii and I are, on behalf of
the State of Hawaii and Governor Ige, responsible for
coordination of Hawaii's efforts to maximize the strategic use
of the once-in-a-lifetime Federal investments in technological
and human infrastructure that will ensure sustainable, robust,
resilient and affordable broadband access to all of our
residents. This coordination role cuts across all agencies and
brings our proven expertise to work with Hawaii's Department of
Hawaiian Homelands to collaboratively maximize benefits from
the Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program.
After the last recession, our university led the work to
transform education by leveraging Federal funds to pull last
mile and interconnect fiber to every public school, public
library and public higher education site on every island. We
are now prepared to take the next step in service to the
public.
Hawaii's a unique, isolated island geography presents
special, high-cost challenges to solving vigorous broadband
delivery to our communities. For us, that absolutely requires
that we work together to solve or special submarine and
terrestrial middle mile challenges. Along with these unique,
hard infrastructure hurdles, it is critical that we broadly
address the longstanding digital equity and literacy issues
faced across the Country that otherwise will prevent us from
fully realizing the community benefits possible from our
broadband investments.
We have already pulled together the key public and private
entities to work together to solve these challenges for our
State. Our challenge now includes working together with our
Federal program partners to get the work done.
Planning is critically important and we need to get to
execution to deliver the expected benefits to our communities.
The Federal investments will allow us to work as true partners
with our private sector counterparts and overcome their
traditional shareholder return on investment guiderails that
have heretofore left Hawaii citizens and many other rural and
economically isolated communities behind the broadband curve.
UOH really appreciates this unique opportunity to make
generational investments that are absolutely critical to
essential education, health care and public services. We look
forward to doing the hard work necessary to execute our project
plans.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I will
stand by to answer questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Yoshimi follows:]
Prepared Statement of Garret Yoshimi, Chief Information Officer/Vice
President, Information Technology, University of Hawaii
Good afternoon, Chair Schatz, Vice Chair Murkowski and members of
the committee:
Thank you for allowing me to testify this afternoon representing
the State of Hawai`i's broadband interests. In the interest of
maximizing the benefit to Hawai`i to strategically invest the once-in-
a-lifetime public funding opportunity, Governor Ige requested that we
collaborate with all of Hawai`i's public and community stakeholders to
coordinate plans and efforts to help ensure robust, reliable and
affordable broadband access for all of Hawai`i's citizens. This
includes the substantial funding to the State of Hawai`i, Department of
Hawaiian Homelands (DHHL) under the Tribal Broadband Connectivity
program funded through the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021
(CAA) and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA),
representing a total of at least $90 million to directly benefit the
native Hawaiian community. As a key strategy to maximize the overall
investment in broadband infrastructure and support for the State of
Hawai`i, we are working with DHHL leadership to ensure that we can
appropriately leverage the direct investment, together with the
substantial amounts anticipated to benefit Hawai`i's overall broadband
portfolio; that overall statewide investment will also benefit the
native Hawaiian community at large.
On behalf of Governor Ige and the State of Hawai`i, we are grateful
for this once-in-alifetime opportunity to make strategic investments in
infrastructure, and wrap-around digital equity, literacy and adoption
support services to ensure that our citizens will be empowered with
critically needed broadband service for current and future generations.
Our responsibility in this statewide coordination role is to align the
set of program opportunities with the critical needs of Hawai`i, to
identify the strategic efforts that will maximize the benefits from the
available funds, to identify and enable the assembly of effective
competitive proposals, and to coordinate all of these efforts to ensure
we can support the objective of sustainable, robust, resilient and
affordable broadband access for all of our residents.
Our statewide coordination efforts began in 2021, anticipating that
multiple programs were being crafted to deliver substantial Federal
support to states. Having decades of in-house experience with state,
regional and national critical telecommunications infrastructure, we
had already been working to independently encourage investments in
critical trans-Pacific submarine fiber optic cable systems to ensure
that Hawai`i would not be forced to re-visit the bandwidth supply
shortages of the 1990s. Prior works had already demonstrated that
significant new capacity would be required in all manner of statewide
broadband infrastructure to adequately empower our citizens to access
and benefit from the future of education, healthcare, entertainment,
commerce and the full range of global information resources. A critical
gap in commercial investments was evident as the aging inter-island
submarine fiber optic cable systems, and the terrestrial fiber middle
mile systems connecting those submarine systems were showing their age,
and causing concern as to the capacity and reliability of modern
broadband services supporting essential education, healthcare and
government services. The limited capacity in this crucial middle mile
infrastructure was a major factor in keeping Hawai`i's residents from
access to truly robust broadband services, while the risk of service
interruption was unfortunately too close for comfort--a fault in one of
the inter-island submarine systems demonstrated the devastating impacts
possible as most of the island of Kauai (over 70,000 residents) was
literally cut off from the Internet (and cable TV and phone service)
for nearly a full day in 2019.
Under the leadership of University of Hawai`i President Lassner,
and with the support of multiple grants from the National Science
Foundation, we have been working to develop programs and high capacity
network access activities around developing trans-Pacific submarine
cable systems throughout the Pacific region. In addition to
successfully acquiring capacity on one of the new trans-Pacific systems
in 2018, we've collaborated with a number of international partners to
build connections on Guam, serving as an extension of our own network
to directly connect with Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and Japan,
as well as numerous other points at the western rim of the Pacific.
These efforts and the successful uses of the resulting robust broadband
access underscore the critical need to continue to develop Hawai`i's
assets to encourage future global connectivity, and ensure our
communities have access to global information resources. As with the
numerous island countries throughout the Pacific, it is critical that
we pay attention to ensuring our own islands of Hawai`i have the
necessary robust and resilient capacity to connect all of our citizens
to the benefits of broadband services.
In addition to the critical and unique challenges with broadband
technology infrastructure serving our isolated island geography, we
also believe that the range of wrap-around services supporting digital
equity, access and literacy are absolutely critical to effective
adoption and use of broadband services. Together with direct outreach
and support by DHHL to its own native Hawaiian communities, we expect
that our statewide efforts will provide broad opportunities to elevate
the overall digital literacy of our community, and in doing so, help to
address historical inequities in access to and effective use of
technologies including broadband services. We will intentionally
integrate wrap-around support services as a pillar of our investment
strategies to help ensure that historically disadvantaged communities
have opportunities to access and effectively utilize the breadth of
information and services enabled by our extended broadband
infrastructure. Early efforts to assess and deploy solutions for the
digital equity and literacy needs of the community are underway, and
will serve as the basis for the statewide digital equity and literacy
planning and capacity efforts to be supported by the anticipated IIJA-
established programs. Combined with a number of broadly supported
technology workforce development and training efforts, these digital
equity and literacy programs will be integrated to provide broad
support for our widely distributed community needs.
Anticipating direct receipt of substantial Federal funds, DHHL
Director William Aila, Deputy Director Tyler Gomes and Special
Assistant Niniau Kawaihae, started work on planning for deployment of
services to support the range of DHHL statewide locations and
beneficiary communities. Their initial assessment of costs to provision
statewide coverage did identify significant cost and availability
hurdles, in particular for connectivity between the widely distributed
native Hawaiian communities on all islands. As part of our statewide
coordination role, we engaged in early and ongoing conversations with
DHHL and their retained consultants to help round out their
understanding of the Hawai`i telecommunications market. While the
specifics of the infrastructure to be deployed remains to be fully
developed, we expect that DHHL will look to implement a mix of fiber-
to-the-premises and fixed wireless services to support connections
throughout its communities to fully address unserved and underserved
locations, to overcome the limited availability of services offered by
the current incumbent provider. The planned build-outs together with
the anticipated statewide coverage by Low Earth Orbit (LEO) provider
Starlink/SpaceX, will effectively help to ensure services are
universally available in DHHL communities. The DHHL efforts will also
address the individual needs of the native Hawaiian members of
community, fully coordinated with our statewide efforts to build and
fund the critical human support infrastructure.
The high cost middle mile infrastructure constraints we identified
independently of the DHHL team, were consistent with the challenges
DHHL and its consultant flagged during the initial planning effort. As
part of our overall coordination role for statewide investments, we did
identify the opportunity to share access to new strategic middle mile
assets, including inter-island submarine fiber optic cable systems, as
a clear win emerging from cooperative planning and deployment across
the range of Federal programs, including the Tribal Broadband
Connectivity program. Our overall statewide efforts include
coordination of use of a number of broadband funding sources, including
the US Treasury Coronavirus Capital Projects Fund (CCPF) established
under American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA), and the range of NTIA
programs established under IIJA, including the Broadband Equity, Access
and Deployment (BEAD) program, the set of Digital Equity programs, and
the competitive Enabling Middle Mile Broadband Infrastructure (EMMBI)
program. We do expect to make strategic investments in the critical,
and clearly aging and brittle, middle mile infrastructure throughout
Hawai`i, including new inter-island submarine and supporting
terrestrial fiber optic cable routes. These strategic middle mile
investments are critical to cover current and anticipated future needs
for all manner of providers and consumers of broadband services
throughout Hawai`i.
Comprehensive efforts to close the gaps in middle mile, last mile
and wraparound support services are critical to ensure Hawai`i's
communities are properly supported to thrive into the future. We expect
the critical middle mile efforts will be funded by CCPF, BEAD and the
EMMBI programs. Further, BEAD and Digital Equity (DE) program funds
will address both last mile gaps, and affordability, equity and
literacy wrap-around services to maximize the benefits to all residents
of Hawai`i. Additional specifics as to the distribution of projects
between the various sources will be completed as soon as the NTIA
notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) material is released for BEAD and
EMMBI (anticipated on or about May 16th). In advance of these program
rules being available, we have been working with a number of potential
partners to plan our approach to address the required construction
efforts. This includes the just announced award of landing site survey
and desktop design work for the posed inter-island submarine cable
system build (funded with State Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal
Recovery Fund (CSLFRF) dollars). While we have the state CCPF plans
under development, we are looking forward to the guidance that the
additional NOFOs will provide so to we can maximize the opportunities
for access to the funds. There is also substantial uncertainty around
the to-be-released FCC service maps, upon which the distribution
formulas for BEAD and DE programs will be based; at this time, our
initial planning is around the amounts where we have certainty, with
expectation that some additional amounts will become available once the
new maps are available later this year.
Looking forward, we expect ongoing challenges and bumps along this
road. Effective investment of the public funds will take time, effort
and participation on the part of the entire community. Our partners
include a number of public entities that each bring our own internal
policies and regulations that must be taken into account during project
planning and execution. Even with the substantial amounts available,
there can never be enough funding to build everything for everyone; all
solutions must be value-driven and focus on the investments that will
deliver benefit over an extended period of time. Agencies overseeing
these programs, in particular NTIA, have been stretched in working
through the mass of details necessary to execute on the intent of the
new laws, including the need to staff new programs from the ground-up,
all during a time when expedited execution is the common expectation.
We fully expect demands on all of us to increase exponentially over the
next couple of weeks with the anticipated release of NOFOs for perhaps
three additional new NTIA programs (BEAD, DE plan and EMMBI),
established under IIJA. Many of the new programs are working hard to
establish and fully vet rules, criteria, proposals and plans, and have
experienced delays in getting to execution. Now is the time to take on
fully collaborative execution, and work to get newly minted programs
into delivery mode.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify this afternoon. I am happy
to answer any questions, and to provide clarification on our activities
here in Hawai`i.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Yoshimi, for
testifying.
Ms. Borromeo, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF NICOLE BORROMEO, EXECUTIVE VICE
PRESIDENT/GENERAL COUNSEL, ALASKA FEDERATION OF NATIVES
Ms. Borromeo. Aloha, Chairman Schatz, Vice Chairman
Murkowski, and members of the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian
Affairs. Quyanaa for the opportunity to testify today on
Setting New Foundations: Implementing the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act for Native Communities.
My name is Nicole Borromeo and I serve as the Executive
Vice President and General Counsel of the Alaska Federation of
Natives.
Established in 1966 to achieve a fair and just settlement
of our aboriginal land claims, AFN is the oldest and largest
Native organization in Alaska. AFN counts as members 158
federally-recognized tribes, 10 regional and 141 village Native
corporations established under the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act and all 12 regional tribal non-profits that
compact to run Federal programs under the Indian Self
Determination and Education Assistance Act.
As Vice Chairman Murkowski mentioned, having recently
formed a consortium of eligible Native entities to apply for
the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration's Broadband Connectivity Program for use and
adoption grants, and just hours ago, being told that we were,
in fact, a recipient of an award, AFN is well positioned to
help the Committee understand some of the challenges facing the
Native community with respect to the IIJA.
Today, however, I want to focus my testimony on one issue
and one issue alone, which is permitting. I trust the Chairman,
Vice Chairman and other members of the Committee will refer to
my written testimony for other important matters.
In AFN's view, the number one post-award failure to success
under the IIJA is permitting. True, there is $13 billion
earmarked for tribal communities and Native entities under the
bill. However, if our tribes, Native corporations, tribal and
Native Hawaiian organizations cannot permit, the resources that
the members of this Committee worked so hard to secure for us
as Native people will be returned to the Department of
Treasury.
AFN suggests two solutions. First, in Alaska and other
States with high acreages of Federal public lands, please
encourage, if not mandate, that the Department of the Interior
either enter into a joint memorandum of understanding with the
respective Federal agency who has issued the infrastructure
award to develop and implement one permit for both departments,
or to create one permit for the entire Department the Interior.
By example, in Alaska, just one infrastructure project may
touch on lands managed by four agencies within the Department
of Interior: the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Bureau of Land
Management; Fish and Wildlife Service; and the National Park
Service. Each of these agencies in turn have their own
permitting processes and sometimes they conflict with each
other which causes unnecessary delays.
Second, please encourage or mandate all Federal departments
and agencies to strictly adhere to the FAST Act. Doing so will
bring about a deliberate, transparent and predictable Federal
permitting process for all tribal infrastructure projects.
I want to say mahalo to your commitment to Indian Country
and to the Islands for making sure that we as Native Americans,
Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians were not overlooked in
this once in a generation infrastructure package. I also want
to extend a special mahalo to Lucy Murfitt and Amber Ebarb from
the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. They have provided
invaluable support to Alaska, not just recently, but during
their tenure in the Senate.
Also to Adam Geisler and Nick Courtney at the National
Telecommunication and Information Administration. I know Adam
took some tough questioning from the members of this Committee
earlier, but he really has been such a great example of what is
possible with a Federal employee.
Finally, at the Department of Treasury, Fatima Abbas, we
could not have moved the mountains we have recently moved in
Alaska without Fatima being over there. I welcome the
opportunity to answer any questions you may have. Thank you for
having me.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Borromeo follows:]
Prepared Statement of Nicole Borromeo, Executive Vice President/General
Counsel, Alaska Federation of Natives
I. Introduction
Thank you, Chairman Schatz, Vice-Chair Murkowski, and Members of
the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, for inviting me to testify
today on ``Setting New Foundations: Implementing the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act for Native Communities.'' My name is Nicole
Borromeo and I am the Executive Vice-President and General Counsel of
the Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN). \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Shareholder of Doyon, Limited, the ANCSA regional corporation
for Interior Alaska, and the Board Chairman for MTNT, Ltd., the ANCSA
village corporation representing four Interior Alaska villages. Member
of the Alaska Redistricting Board; the U.S. Census Bureau's National
Advisory Committee on Race, Ethnicity, and Other Populations; and the
U.S. Department of Energy's Indian Country Energy and Infrastructure
Workgroup. Founding Board Member of Justice Not Politics Alaska, a
nonpartisan organization promoting the independence of Alaska's
judiciary. Mentor in the Color of Justice Program. J.D., University of
Washington; B.A., the University of Alaska-Anchorage. I reside in
Anchorage with my husband and our four children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Established in 1966 to achieve a fair and just settlement of Alaska
Native aboriginal land claims, AFN is the oldest and largest statewide
Native membership organization in Alaska. Our members include most of
Alaska's federally recognized tribes; most of the regional and village
Native corporations (ANCs) established under the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act of 1971; \2\ and all of the regional non-profit tribal
organizations that contract or compact to administer federal programs
pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act
of 1975. \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.
\3\ 25 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having formed a consortium of 74 ``eligible entities'' to apply to
the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)
for a Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program (TBCP) use and adoption
grant in September of last year, and diligently responding to the
agency's request for additional information as late as last week, AFN
is well positioned to help the Committee understand the challenges
facing the Alaska Native community with respect to the Infrastructure
and Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ P.L. 117-58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IIJA is similar to a man shipwrecked in the middle of the ocean
with no drinking water. He is surrounded by water, yet he cannot drink
it. Sadly, many Alaska Native tribes, Native corporations, and tribal
organizations--as well as Native Hawaiian organizations--are in this
same boat. According to the White House, IIJA has surrounded eligible
Native entities with more than 350 infrastructure programs spread
across a dozen federal departments and agencies, \5\ yet they do not
have the manpower or money, let alone a stable Internet connection in
some instances, to apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The White House, Building a Better America: A Guidebook to the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law for State, Local, Tribal, and Territorial
Governments, and Other Partners, (Jan. 31, 2022) https://
www.whitehouse.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2022/01/BUILDING-A-BETTER-
AMERICA_FINAL.pdf (last visited May 2, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the past 10 months, AFN has been running a COVID-19 Navigator
Program. The Program was initially funded through the State of Alaska's
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES) \6\
allocation. However, more recently the Program has been funded through
a regional ANC's tribal CARES Act allocation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ P.L. 116-136.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Through our COVID-19 Navigator Program, AFN identifies federal
grant opportunities that Alaska tribes, Native corporations, and tribal
organizations are eligible for; participates in federal/tribal (or ANC)
consultations; submits written comments for most of these
opportunities, and works with eligible entities to apply. We provide a
bi-weekly newsletter and arrange monthly webinars and training sessions
with federal officials to explain how their respective programs work.
AFN has also hired a cadre of ``Regional Navigators'' to work one-
on-one with individual tribes, Native corporations, and tribal
organizations to make sure they know about upcoming federal grants and,
if we are able, provide grant writing services. In some cases, such as
the TBCP administered by NTIA, we have formed a consortium of
``eligible entities'' to help ensure Alaska's tribes, Native
corporations, and tribal organizations with limited resources are able
to access federal programs.
The one constant refrain we hear from nearly every Native entity we
talk with is: ``we are overwhelmed.'' Turnover is high due to the
nearly daily tribal consultations, never-ending quarterly compliance
reports, and other COVID-19 stressors.
Make no mistake: having more than 350 federal grant opportunities
that our tribes, Native corporations, and tribal organizations (as well
as Native Hawaiian organizations) may be eligible for through IIJA is a
high-quality problem to have. However, unless this Committee works with
their colleagues in Congress to better structure the opportunities in
IIJA, the divide between the ``haves'' and the ``have-nots'' in Indian
country and across the Islands will become wider and deeper.
The good news is there are some simple steps this Committee can
take to address some of these problems.
II. Recommendation No. 1: Permit Tribes, Tribal Organizations, Native
Corporations, and Native Hawaiian Organizations to Submit a
Paper
Grant Application if Their Community is ``Unserved'' by
Broadband
A major hurdle encountered by a number of Alaska Native entities
when presented with an IIJA grant opportunity is most federal program
applications can only be submitted electronically. Unfortunately, this
requirement excludes many remote Alaska tribes and Native corporations
and serves as a form of structural exclusion. For example, the Tribal
Broadband Connectivity Program required ``eligible entities'' without
broadband to submit their applications online for the $1 billion that
was set-aside for tribes. Paper applications were not permitted. That
requirement seems overly stringent.
In the case of Rampart, a small, rural, Native village, the Tribal
Administrator had to float down a portion of the raging Yukon River by
skiff for 20 miles, get out on the other side of the river, walk
several miles to a road, only to hitchhike to the nearest city with
broadband to submit the Tribe's application for a federal IIJA program.
This is not fair to similarly situated tribes. When tribes, Native
corporations, tribal organizations (and Native Hawaiian organizations)
do not have access to reliable broadband, they should be allowed to
mail paper copies of their applications to federal agencies.
One federal agency at the Department of Health and Human Services
when confronted with this scenario said, ``it's not our problem.'' Only
six of Alaska's 229 tribes were able to participate in that agency's
programs. When AFN inquired about making an exception to the rule, we
were told that no exceptions could or would be made.
In contrast, the Rural Development Administration which is used to
dealing with rural communities allows tribes with inadequate broadband
to submit paper applications. They should be the model.
AFN recommends this Committee champion an amendment that applies
government wide requiring all federal agencies to accept paper
applications when eligible Native entities have inadequate broadband.
This could be a stand-alone bill, or an amendment to the General
Provisions in the Financial Services Appropriations bill. Draft
language for purposes of the Committee's consideration is as follows:
Sec.___. Hereafter, notwithstanding any other provision of law
or requirement of a Notice of Funding Opportunity or similar
instrument, any grant application or request for assistance may
be submitted by United States mail or by mailing service by
tribes, tribal organizations, Alaska Native Corporations, or
Native Hawaiian organizations located in communities unserved
by broadband as defined by the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration, so long as such application or
request is postmarked or marked by the mailing service no later
than the application deadline and applicant retains the receipt
of mailing as proof of timely filing.
III. Recommendation No. 2: Permit Tribal Organizations to Submit
Consortium Applications on Behalf of Tribes
Many of Alaska's 229 tribes have been designated by the Bureau of
Indian Affairs (BIA) as ``small and needy.'' Small is defined as having
fewer than 1,500 enrolled tribal members. Needy is defined as having
less than $160,000 in income ($200,000 for Alaska).
Many of these ``small and needy'' tribes have a skeleton staff of
one or maybe two people who often work part-time, yet these tribes are
often the ones with the greatest needs, including:
No running water
Open sewers
Severe overcrowding
Extremely high poverty rates
Energy costs that are 1,000 times the national average
These tribes do not have the capacity to apply for federal grants
in their own right, and instead rely on their affiliated tribal
organizations to submit applications for them. Yet unless Congress
specifically authorizes a tribal organization to apply for a federal
program for the tribes in their ``service delivery area,'' some
agencies reject applications from tribal organizations.
A recent example is the Tribal Libraries program at the Institute
of Museum and Library Services. This Committee created a separate grant
program for tribal libraries called ``enhanced library grants.'' Only
four of Alaska's 229 tribes applied. Some 173 tribes did not apply for
the basic library grant.
AFN obtained tribal resolutions from nearly 100 Alaska tribes so we
could submit a consortium application on their behalf but was advised
that this was not permitted under the statute. Consortia applications
were permitted only from a tribe that gathered other tribes into its
application--not by a tribal organization that served those same
tribes. As a result, less than 20 percent of Alaska tribes will be able
to participate in this program.
To address this issue, AFN recommends two actions:
1. Ideally every Congressional committee would authorize tribal
organizations to apply for federal grants and other assistance
for tribes at their request, so long as the tribe provides a
tribal resolutions or letter of authorization to the tribal
organization.
The Indian Affairs Committee should advise the Legislative
Counsel's office to include authority for tribal organizations
for Native grants or at least raise the issue with the members
and committee for whom they draft.
2. Alternatively, the Indian Affairs Committee should include a
blanket authorization for tribal organizations to submit
applications on behalf of requesting tribes, as part of a
freestanding bill, or as a rider to the Financial Services
Appropriations bill. Draft language for purposes of the
Committee's consideration is as follows:
Sec.------. Hereafter, notwithstanding any other provision of
law, a ``tribal organization'' as defined in Section 4(l) of
P.L. 93-638 may submit or file any grant application or other
request for assistance to any federal department, agency,
commission, independent agency, or instrumentality of the
federal government on behalf of an ``Indian tribe'' as defined
in Section 4(e) of P.L. 93-638 so long as such application or
request is accompanied by a tribal resolution or letter
authorizing such tribal organization to submit the application
or request on behalf of such Indian tribe.
IV. Recommendation No. 4: Give Federal Agencies Authority to Extend
Statutory Deadlines for Grant Programs for 30 Days Upon a
Showing of ``Good Cause''
A number of recent federal programs authorized by Congress have
included statutory application deadlines that could not be met by
eligible Native entities for a variety of reasons. While some
departments have been willing to extend those deadlines, others have
not--leaving many tribal communities out of their programs.
For example, the Congress required that tribes, Native
Corporations, and tribal organizations, as well as Native Hawaiian
organizations, submit applications for broadband grants to the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration by September 1, 2021.
Unfortunately, that deadline fell right in the middle of the
subsistence and commercial fishing season in Alaska. Because of the
migratory nature of salmon, fisherman must catch them when they pass by
their village or the fish cannot be harvested at all. AFN requested an
extension of the deadline, which was understandably denied, on grounds
that the deadline was cemented in statute and the law provided no
waiver process.
Likewise, other grant deadlines have occurred during the middle of
historic storms, electrical outages, and Internet disruptions making it
impossible to complete and submit applications in a timely manner.
In contract, other departments such as Treasury have provided a
number of extensions to application deadlines, including statutory
deadlines. AFN recommends that every department and agency be given the
flexibility to extend a deadline by 30 days, so long as the potential
applicants show good cause for the extension. tribal organizations
Draft language for purposes of the Committee's consideration is as
follows.
Sec.___. Hereafter, notwithstanding any other provision of law
every federal department, agency, commission, independent
agency or instrumentality of the federal government may extend
any deadline to submit a grant application or other request for
assistance by 30 days upon a showing of good cause including
engagement in subsistence hunting, fishing, or gathering
activities, high pandemic infection rates, disrupted broadband
connections, or natural disasters such as floods, hurricanes,
tornados, severe storms, or earthquakes.
V. Recommendation No. 5: Increase Resources for Small and Needy Tribes
In 1997 Congress recognized that not all tribes have benefitted
from Indian gaming operations, oil and gas leases, or other economic
development activities. Many live in abject poverty without even the
most basic resources to operate their tribal governments. This is
especially true in Alaska.
There are some 310 ``small and needy'' tribes across the country,
many without even the most basic services like running water or human
waste disposal. The Interior Appropriations Subcommittee created a
special program to help these 310 ``small and needy'' tribes operate
their tribal governments, which includes applying for federal grants.
In the fiscal year 2022 budget, out of the $355 million provided
for the tribal government programs line item, a little over $4 million
was set aside for ``small and needy'' tribes according to the
conference report. While that represents a $2 million increase over
previous years for which we are grateful, it is just under $13,000 per
tribe.
AFN recommends that this Committee hold a hearing on the needs of
``small and needy'' tribes. We recommend that Congress increase funding
to enable them to participate in a more meaningful way in the federal
COVID-19 assistance programs and infrastructure programs that it has
created.
Alternatively, Congress should consider establishing a new Native
Navigator program to empower tribal organizations such as the Alaska
Native regional non-profit tribal organizations to aid the ``small and
needy'' tribes in their regions or provide resources through each of
the BIA Regional Offices.
For example, with the right resources, the Association of Village
Council Presidents could submit applications on behalf of the 56
largely small and needy tribes in Southwestern Alaska.
VI. Recommendation No. 6: Create a New Website to Help Track all
Federal Grant Programs for Which Tribes, Native Corporations,
Tribal
Organizations, and Native Hawaiian Organizations may be
Eligible
As noted above, there are over 350 federal grant programs being
provided through IIJA, so it is overwhelming for eligible Native
entities to keep up with all the funding opportunities that may be
available to them. There is no centralized database to keep up with
tribal consultations, when written comments are due, when Notices of
Funding Opportunity open up--and when they will be closing--or other
key deadlines.
AFN recommends that the Committee, together with support from the
Office of Management and Budget, establish a centralized database
across all agencies that would be accessed through a new website.
Each federal agency would have a page to highlight its upcoming
events, consultations, workshops, trainings, grant opportunities,
Congressional hearings and testimony, and other national events.
This data would feed into a master calendar with hyperlinks so that
each tribe, Native corporation, tribal organization, and Native
Hawaiian organization could track exactly what is happening at the
federal level every day, including what comments are due, what webinars
are scheduled, (and links to sign in), what application deadlines are
coming up, etc.
VII. Recommendation No. 7: Distribute ``Dear Tribal Leader'' Letters
More Widely
In addition, ``Dear Tribal Leader'' letters should be circulated
more widely. There are many groups who seek to assist tribal
governments, Native corporations, tribal organizations, and Native
Hawaiian organizations--such as the National Congress of American
Indians (NCAI), the Alaska Federation of Natives, and the Council on
Native Hawaiian Advancement (CNHA). Yet none of these organizations
receive ``Dear Tribal Leader'' letters unless a tribal leader remembers
to forward it.
AFN recommends that the various federal departments and agencies
allow entities such as NCAI, AFN, and CNHA to sign up for their tribal
list serves.
VIII. Recommendation No. 8: Establish a Native American Affairs Office
at Every Department and Agency
AFN also believes that every agency should have a Native American
Affairs office that can assist tribes, Native corporations, tribal
organizations, and Native Hawaiian organizations, access federal
programs and provide information and help. Some agencies have excellent
programs--Treasury being an example--but other have nothing.
IIJA mandated the creation of a Native Affairs Office at the
Department of Transportation located within the Secretary's office.
AFN recommends that this Committee should mandate such an office
for every federal department with the exception of the Department of
State. Likewise, each agency that interacts with Native entities should
have designated staff available to answer questions and help navigate
the process.
IX. Conclusion
Thank you again for inviting AFN to testify as part of today's
hearing on ``Setting New Foundations: Implementing the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act for Native Communities.'' Below is a list of
the ``best'' and ``worst'' practices for the successful implementation
of IIJA in Native communities.
Best Practices
1. Extend application deadlines when necessary.
2. Avoid scheduling multiple grant deadlines in the same month--
spread them out instead.
3. Allow eligible Native entities to submit written applications
through the mail, particularly when broadband connections are
unreliable.
4. Schedule regular workshops and webinars to walk through details
of upcoming grant opportunities.
5. When sending reminders to eligible Native entities of upcoming
deadlines, provide the name, phone number, and email address of an
agency staffer who can answer questions.
6. When a tribal leader or employee of a Native entity makes oral
comments during a consultation, agency personnel should summarize what
they heard the person saying and answer any questions he or she may
have posed--Adam Geisler with NTIA always does this.
7. ``Dear Tribal Leader'' letters and all information relevant to
eligible Native entities should be located on one page of the agency's
website--tribes should not have to spend hours trying to find
information.
8. Each agency should have one webpage with all information related
to tribes including consultations, application deadlines, application
forms, names and contact information for key staff, answers to
Frequently Asked Questions, etc.
Worst Practices
1. Scheduling tribal consultations earlier than 1:00 p.m. (EST)--
this is unfair to Alaska and Hawaii.
2. Requiring a tribe to submit written comments minutes after a
tribal consultation ends or even during the tribal consultation--tribes
should be given at least two days after a tribal consultation ends to
submit comments in order to include ideas that were discussed during
the consultation.
3. Schedule a tribal consultation for one hour--this does not allow
sufficient time for a presentation and a period of Q&A.
The Chairman. I want to thank all of the testifiers. I will
start with my questions.
Mr. Yoshimi, what is the current implementation plan and
the status for the funds that were set aside for the Department
of Hawaiian Homelands in the Fiscal Year 2021 Consolidated
Appropriations Act?
Mr. Yoshimi. Senator, thank you for the question. The
Department has put together its preliminary plan and submitted
that as part of its original proposal, as you mentioned, to
NTIA. The plans involve a number of different elements
including delivery of services and support directly to the
community as well as significant investments in infrastructure,
both in fiber as well as fixed wireless services, to support
all of the community members.
There is a lot of work to do. Again, even though there are
estimates of costs, as you know, and as construction goes,
there are a lot of details to work through in terms of siting
and determining exactly how those costs will be deployed as
part of the execution process. As you mentioned earlier in your
questioning with Mr. Geisler from NTIA, the Department of
Hawaiian Homelands does not yet have an agreement with NTIA in
terms of executing on the initial CEA grant, but we are hopeful
that by putting heads together and really getting the NTIA and
DHHL to work collaboratively together, we can get this to move
forward.
Obviously folks are frustrated with the amount of time that
has ticked away so far, as I am sure you are. We are very
interested in making sure the DHHL plans can be executed on as
soon as possible, in particular with availability of additional
funds under IHF. As we mentioned, we will work together with
them to coordinate their work with the rest of the State work
that we are responsible for.
The Chairman. Maybe it is imprudent for me to ask here but
my curiosity is sort of killing me. I still don't understand
what NTIA was saying about the DHHL application. Can you shed
some light on that, or is that going to get you in trouble?
Mr. Yoshimi. I will try and maybe describe to the best of
my knowledge. The folks at NTIA have worked directly with the
leaders at DHHL to try to and work through this. I understand
there is some frustration on the part of both parties. Some of
that I believe is sourced out of some of the process and
procedure restrictions that DHHL operates under as a State
entity. Some of those are procurement and contracting laws and
policies.
Obviously, there are lots of ways to work through the
elements. In my opinion, one of the best ways to work through
this is perhaps to at least get some agreement in place to move
forward and then do some coordination during execution so that
we can be assured that DHHL provides the necessary assurances
and compliance back to NTIA to get the work done.
I think there is kind of the missing, a little bit, back
and forth in some of the conversations to date, at least that
is my understanding based on conversations I have had.
The Chairman. So each level of government, each agency, has
their own rules and they are trying to synch.
Mr. Yoshimi. Yes, they kind of go like this. I think it is
important. I think DHHL is a little bit different than some of
the other entities NTIA has dealt with in the past. There is
always a way to get this stuff done. Really is a matter of, I
think, of getting heads together. Obviously, we would be happy
to participate in that as well to move this forward because I
think it is critically important to get us into execution.
The Chairman. Let me know what I can do. Obviously the same
goes for Mr. Aila and Mr. Gomes over at DHHL. We want to get
this done. I am still confident it will get done. I just wanted
to understand what the problem was.
Vice Chair Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Nicole, thank you for being so specific in terms of the
guidance to the Committee. I think probably the others on the
panel would agree that we can't make roads happen, we can't
make water infrastructure happen unless we have some sense of
the permitting process, keenly identifying a couple of things
we need to focus on like joint MOUs but also the FAST Act
itself.
The folks at AFN did a great job in supporting us with the
Infrastructure Grant Symposium that we had last month. But it
was your Navigator Program and the cadre of regional navigators
that were important then but are going to be important moving
forward as we are all seeking to access the opportunities
coming from the Infrastructure Bill.
Given that, do you have any recommendations for best
practices you might offer to the White House Council on Native
American Affairs or the BIA as to how they might create a
larger Federal Navigator Program? You have the Navigator
Programs over at DOI. You are having them set up an interagency
coordinator position to assist tribes. It seems to me we are
designating lots of individuals and entities to be there to
help. But how does the individual tribe in a remote area know
even where to go? Any guidance on this?
Ms. Borromeo. Thank you very much for the question, Senator
Murkowski.
It is difficult for individual tribes in Alaska. We have
229 of them. They are small; they are under-capitalized. In a
lot of instances, they are far removed from our bigger cities,
which are not really big cities compared to the lower 48.
Internet connections are not stable if they have them at all.
I would encourage the tribes in Alaska and the lower 48, if
it applies to them and their regions, to really work through
their regional bodies that they have established. The good
thing is there are several national and statewide
organizations. We are sort of repeating each other's efforts,
tracking the grants, making sure that the Native communities
know about them and how to apply for them.
In terms of what can all of the other Federal agencies do
to help along the way, go out and hire folks like Adam and
Fatima and Lucy and Amber and put them to work. We don't need
more individuals who are doing things the same way that has
been done for the past couple decades. We need fresh ideas. We
need hard workers, folks who are willing to think out of the
box.
It is not good enough in Indian Country and across the
Islands to hit send on an email. That is not how we reach our
people. That is not how we are doing it through the Navigator
Program. We are faxing, we are using public radio, we are using
VHFs. In some instances, we have tracked down a tribal
administrator on a commercial fishing vessel in the middle of
Bristol Bay during the salmon run and said you have to get back
to your office. You have 24 hours to apply for the mandatory
minimum ARPA employment allocation that will come to your
tribe. It is going those extra miles.
But if we just continue to box check, which also is an
unfortunate occurrence a lot of times when we do tribal
consultations, we are not going to get there. I often tell
Federal agencies if the Federal Government wants to learn how
to consult with Native communities and tribes, sign up for one
of Adam Geisler's tribal consultations. We will wait on the
line for eight hours because he stays on the line with us for
eight hours. He knows about the programs. If he doesn't know
about them, he writes it down and he follows up. Other agencies
oftentimes say, thank you, your two minutes is up. Move on to
the next person. Those might be a bit too plain and direct.
Senator Murkowski. I don't think they are too plain and
direct at all. I think we know whether you are in the Islands,
or you are in Alaska, or you are in South Dakota, as you say,
people are communicating in different ways. They are not
waiting for that email to come across to find out what they are
supposed to be doing next. It doesn't translate that way.
Thank you for making it real. Again, the very, very genuine
efforts that the Navigator Program has made, clearly it is
yielding dividends. I would commend that to the Committee.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Rounds.
Senator Rounds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Frazier, first of all, let me say thank you for
being here. It is always good to see you, sir. I think what you
have just represented to the Committee in terms of the
challenges that you face and the frustration with regard to
trying to get a fair funding formula for transportation
services, I think you laid out as well as anyone has in front
of this Committee.
I would also suggest that the discussion that the Ranking
Member and Ms. Borromeo have just had regarding consultation is
critical as well. It is one that you and I had in my office and
that is the need for that consultation.
Let us just visit for a little bit about the funding
formula. I do not think folks realize that when the funding
formula was put into effect for large area tribes, tribes such
as yours, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, or the Rosebud or the
Pine Ridge. In each of those cases, the population is not great
but the number of roads that have to be surfaced is
significant. Yet, the formula does not take that into account.
Talk with us a bit about the frustration that, you kind of
got into in your opening statement but I think we should
elaborate on it. What happens when you walk in and find
yourself with, what can you do with 300 miles of gravel road
when you pick up a couple million bucks a year on it total?
What can you actually do and what are some of the frustrations
you receive in terms of the washouts and what happens if you
lose a road, what kind of detour that means for the folks in
your communities?
Mr. Frazier. Thank you. I am going to ask Mr. Longbrake of
Transportation to come up. It is really, really frustrating.
You go to the BIA, they have the trust responsibility. It is
their road. They own the road but yet they have no money. It is
very frustrating.
This formula, when you look at where the money goes, I
think it is almost criminal, because in there it talks about
zero population, zero, but yet some people are still getting
money for roads. How can you fund something when nobody lives
there according to the formula?
When we look at that, they use a lot of the HUD numbers. We
have 25,000 members on our reservation, yet that HUD formula
says we only have 6,000. Where did they go? It is a numbers
game that is not benefitting us.
I guess Mr. Longbrake can shed a little more light on that.
Senator Rounds. Identify yourself very quickly with the
Chairman's permission, so we know who you are and what you do,
please.
Mr. Longbrake. Good afternoon and good morning in Hawaii. I
am Dakota Longbrake, I am the Director of Transportation for
the tribe. I am also the Chairman of the TTP Coordinating
Committee. I am the Co-Chairman of the TTPCC Road Maintenance
Committee as well.
The biggest issue with the new formula is it was put in
place at the beginning of MAP-21. It has been in statute since
then. The formula is set up to keep, if you did well previous
to MAP-21 and tribes received a lot of money through previous
transportation bills, this formula is set up to keep tribes
basically at that funding level. There are different mechanisms
within the formula, the supplemental part, the last part of
Part B. All of those things try to get you back up to the level
of funding you were at in 2012.
Unfortunately for our tribe and a lot of large land-based
tribes that weren't very, very active in the early 2000s on
increasing your road mileage with county road miles and
tribally owned miles, and things like that, we are stuck now
back to this. The formula uses the road inventory miles from
2011. There has been a lot of miles of roads added to the
inventory since 2011, but the statute is stuck with the 2011
funding year. Even if a tribe wanted to add 1,000 miles of new
road, you would not get any money at all for adding any of
those new miles.
Senator Rounds. Let me get to the bottom of this with the
Chairman. In reality, what you are saying is we can't fix the
formula without an act of Congress?
Mr. Longbrake. Yes. That is correct.
Senator Rounds. That is kind of scary. Thank you for that.
I think that is one of the reasons we have to move forward and
talk about appropriately fixing the funding formula for roads
across this Country and make it fair to everybody involved.
I want to talk a little about the Promise Bridge. I was on
one of those gravel roads with you, Mr. Chairman. We drove
those gravel roads. Some of them are washing out right now.
The Promise Bridge is another example. This was supposed to
be, I think, a five-span bridge back in the 1950s. The Corps of
Engineers built it intending for it to be there for a long
period of time. I also drove by residential spots behind it.
There are not a lot of high value homes in there.
The Corps recognized that. They knew there was a cemetery
there and yet they put in a shortened span bridge that saved
them about $110,000 back in that time period. In doing so, they
understood that even though it should have been a five-span, it
was a three-span, and that water backs up whenever we have a
major water event.
When it does, it backs up over the cemetery of our
relatives there and backs up into the housing area. What we
have is a case once again of trying to work for years. In fact,
you have been in court, you have come out of court and agreed
to work with the Corps to fix it. Once again, it is a matter of
not having the appropriate type of transportation funds even to
fix a bridge that is causing problems for an entire small
community literally flooding the cemetery of your relatives
right now.
Mr. Frazier. Yes, you know what, one of the things I want
to echo, she mentioned about $13 billion coming to Indian
Country. That is awesome and we are like wow, cool. In reality,
hardly anything is coming down. I don't know where it is going
but it isn't coming to Indian Country to fix the bridges, to
fix our roads. That is something we really find very
frustrating in that formula. That is what is designed for,
roads. It is unreal.
Senator Rounds. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for
coming, for traveling over the gravel roads, with two plane
tickets to get here and so forth.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for your patience as I go
over time. Thank you for this hearing as well.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Rounds.
If there are no more questions for our witnesses, members
may submit follow-up questions for the record. The hearing
record will be open for two weeks.
I want to thank all the witnesses for their time and
testimony.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:10 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Brian Schatz to
Hon. Mark Mitchell
Greetings. My name is Mark Mitchell. I am the former Governor of
the Tesuque Pueblo and the current Chairman of the All Pueblo Council
of Governors. The All Pueblo Council of Governors represents the twenty
Pueblo Nations of New Mexico and Texas. Thank you for inviting me to
submit written testimony about this critically important piece of
legislation. I am encouraged that this Committee is interested in
hearing about the climate realities that the Pueblos face.
Question 1. How are mega-drought conditions impacting the Pueblos'
infrastructure maintenance, operation, and construction?
Answer:
Realities of the Mega-Drought Conditions
The Pueblos are situated in the hottest, driest region in this
country. We cannot afford for our climate to get hotter--our
traditional homelands will become literally incapable of supporting
human life. Moreover, the heat is expected to exacerbate drought
conditions and threaten our already scarce water resources. We implore
you to take further action to fight global warming and substantially
invest in the communities that are guaranteed to face the deadly
consequences of climate change. Because of climate change, we are
already facing hotter, more intense, and more frequent wildfires in our
region. In 2016, the Union of Concerned Scientists reported that a
global temperature increase of 1.8F would result in a projected 400
percent increase in wildfire-burned acreage in New Mexico.
We cannot understate the threat that wildfires pose to our
community. Our communities are still cleaning up from the most recent
round of fires. As you may be aware, the Los Conchas fire destroyed
nearly 80 percent of the Santa Clara Pueblo's forested lands, over 50
percent of the Santa Clara Pueblo Watershed, impacted many of the
Pueblos on the Jemez mountains, including Cochiti Pueblo, Jemez Pueblo,
and San Ildefonso Pueblo, and has prevented safe access to the Santa
Clara Canyon, where many sacred traditions are practiced. At the time
of the 2011 Las Conchas fire, it was reported that the living trees in
the canyon had lower moisture content than the wood typically for sale
at a lumber yard. As the Department of the Interior, Interagency Burned
Area Emergency Response (BAER) Team noted, the intense flames from the
fire burned trees and vegetation off the steep slopes of the canyon and
heated the soils, causing severe damage to the natural resources of the
area and placing downstream tribal members of the Santa Clara Pueblo at
risk to extreme flooding. Because of the high severity of the burn,
there has been a dramatic reduction in the infiltration rates in the
burned area--the soil is now what is termed by soil scientists
``hydrophobic.'' The event produced massive debris (including boulders)
and severe mud flows to the canyon bottom. The fire has resulted in a
four-to eight-fold increase in runoff and sediment/debris flow into the
Santa Clara Creek, posing a severe threat to the lives and safety of
the people of Santa Clara Pueblo and increasing the potential for
widespread property damage.
Additionally, these wildfire events have also had negative water
quality impacts as tons of ash, debris and other materials flow into
the Santa Clara Creek. This affects fisheries, wildlife populations,
agriculture and cultural uses, and causes safety issues within our
Santa Clara Canyon due to the destabilized landscape resulting in
falling boulders and dead trees. This runoff also flows into the Rio
Grande, affecting water quality for those downstream communities as
well.
In this one fire, more than 15,000 acres of the 21,440 acres of
tribally owned forest lands were destroyed. Worse still, the Las
Conchas Fire reburned an area where the Santa Clara Pueblo had planted
more than a million trees in an effort to recover from an earlier
wildfire. Since the Las Conchas Fire, the Pueblos have only just begun
the infinitely more complex process of addressing the regeneration of
the forest in the Canyon.
To make matters worse, Pueblo irrigation systems are among the
oldest in this nation. Addressing aging water systems, specifically the
third-world sewage ponds that many of our Pueblos and Tribes continue
to be subjected to, is an urgent need for our communities.
Mega-Drought Fiscal Needs
Congress should always appropriate money for continuing operation
and maintenance expenses for the capital projects it funds. However,
the Pueblos are presently more concerned with securing funding for the
irrigation improvements to phase out the use of unsustainable legacy
technology that is not even providing us with healthy water
infrastructure. As the costs of labor and materials continue to rise,
these overhauls only become more expensive to install.
Unfortunately, unexpected wildfires force us to divert funding
intended for other uses, such as routine maintenance and operation of
our existing infrastructure, to address the fires. This includes the
actual fighting of fires, of course, but also includes costs to clean-
up after the fire, such as removing boulders and sediment from our
canyons and river systems, and the costs for deploying technology to
combat the negative water quality impacts resulting from contamination
of our watersheds by these materials.
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law's $500 million for Community
Wildfire Defense programs is a much-needed investment for our community
and we eagerly await its roll-out. We encourage this Committee to
consider making a similar yearly investment in such programs. This will
enable us to not only react to past events, but to build institutional
capacity to deploy preventative programs to reduce the frequency and
severity of wildfire events. Recurring funding for this program will
also enable us to reach a level of funding that would permit us to
actually cover the expenses for operation and maintenance of our
regular infrastructure, instead of diverting these funds to help cover
emergency response efforts, which, as we noted above, are becoming more
frequent and more severe. Along similar lines, we urge Congress to
provide as much funding as possible to support post-fire tribal
reforestation, clean-up, and mitigation efforts. This funding will also
help alleviate some of the pressure that is put on our already limited
financial resources.
We also look forward to the opportunities afforded by the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law's investment in rural sanitation and
water infrastructure. Congress' decision to provide Sanitation
Facilities funding to the Indian Health Service to address backlogged
sanitation needs across Indian Country is an excellent initial
investment we hope to access to replace our lagoon systems and
modernize our water infrastructure. As you know, water projects are
fundamentally important to the Southwest. We are heartened by Secretary
Haaland's creation of the Drought Relief Working Group to tackle the
issue of water insecurity in the West and Southwest.
However, we need your continued support for establishing strong
regional water infrastructure now. Regional water infrastructure will
help us safeguard our communities from certain water insecurities and
health impacts associated with our aging water systems. These
investments in water systems will also help us to sustain our life ways
and mitigate the increase in wildfires. Unfortunately, Tribes and
Pueblos tend to be the last communities to benefit from these regional
projects. In the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, Congress committed to
spend $160 million on the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water System.
Unfortunately, not a single Pueblo is served by the Eastern New Mexico
Rural Water System. Additionally, in 2017, a report entitled
``Irrigation Infrastructure Report for the Rio Grande Pueblos''
identified nearly $280 million of irrigation improvements needed on
Pueblo lands. This report still sits unsigned at the Bureau of
Reclamation. We need this Committee to urge the Department of the
Interior to sign and release the report. Moreover, we need
appropriations for the $280 million worth of need first identified in
2017, as well as funding to fulfil all subsequent fiscal needs that
have arisen as a result of aging systems further breaking down, new
environmental contamination issues, and inflation of labor and
materials costs over the last four years.
We also urge this Committee to undertake all actions necessary to
ensure robust Federal water pollution control laws. The health of our
Pueblos hangs in the balance when far-away courts interpret water laws
to remove pollution restrictions on New Mexico waterways and divest
Pueblos of authority to block these projects. Additionally, unexpected
contamination of our watersheds is another crisis that forces us to
divert other necessary infrastructure funding. We need Congress to take
every action to prevent this from happening.
Question 2. Are these mega-drought conditions increasing the
overall cost of projects for the Pueblos? And, if so, do the Pueblos
have sufficient funds to address these additional costs?
Answer. Rising year-round temperatures on Pueblo lands puts our
construction workers at increased risk of heat-related illnesses,
including death. We expect that this will raise the cost of labor and
health care at a rate that may outpace other regions of the country
that are not similarly affected (in addition to the existing elevated
costs resulting from inflation). Rising temperatures will also result
in increased expenses for wildfire-related activities, including for
fire prevention, climate resilience investment, and fire response. We
also expect the demand for this labor to increase, and for the cost of
this labor to increase as the climate crisis gets more and more severe.
We applaud Congress' action to secure $216 million for tribal climate
resilience, adaptation, mitigation, and community relocation efforts.
But, you must know that this is not nearly enough.
Second, as we have testified before, cost match requirements
constitute an additional obstacle to accessing desperately-needed
funds. The Pueblos are already underfunded and our budgets are tight.
Most of our funds have already been earmarked for other necessary
services and approved by our governing bodies for those purposes.
Simply put, we do not typically have the agility to free up governance
funds to meet cost match demands of Federal programs. Where not
required by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, we urge you to ensure
that the implementing Federal agencies do not add any such burdens to
programs. Securing funding for and complying with cost match
requirements increases our costs and takes needed resources away from
other programs. We hope that in drafting future legislation you keep in
mind the burden placed on Indian Country and choose to forgo cost match
requirements entirely.
Question 3. Is it difficult to work with multiple federal agencies
to carry out projects meant to respond to or mitigate the impacts of
mega-drought conditions? If so, what are the barriers? What can
Congress do to help?
Answer. First, given the number of Federal agencies responsible for
carrying out programs under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, we
expect a great variety in compliance requirements and will need all of
the technical assistance we can get. These compliance requirements are
legal and technical burdens on our Tribal Governments. Many of us do
not have dedicated grants administration professionals on staff, and
often we do not have the budget to employ grant writers, contract
professionals, or attorneys for review of program requirements. It is
paramount, therefore, that the Federal government ensures that there
are knowledgeable and dedicated agency staff available to provide
program application, development, accounting, reporting, and other
technical assistance to Tribes throughout every phase of program
administration.
To alleviate some of these issues, we need the Federal Government
to move together to contemporaneously roll out these programs and
streamline application procedures so that we can effectively plan and
allocate resources. We need the ability to pair program dollars across
agencies and programs to enhance our project goals and maximize our
return on investment. To accomplish these efficiencies, we recommend
that the Federal Government create a master calendar to manage program
application and reporting requirements across agencies. Such a calendar
would ensure that the Federal Government implements programs at the
same time, and would help Tribes keep track of the dozens of deadlines,
reporting requirements, and reporting agencies. Additionally, uniform
program requirements across the Federal Government would also provide
stability and decrease our compliance costs.
With respect to tribal consultation, we need all federal agencies
to commit to meaningful consultation. Meaningful consultation requires
that dialogue with Tribal partners occurs with a goal of reaching
consensus. Consultation must mean more than merely ``checking the box''
and cataloguing the objections of Tribal Nations. The goal of sitting
down at the table together should be mutual understanding and
agreement. Otherwise, consultation is not meaningful. In addition, we
need federal agencies to talk to each other and to Congress about our
consultations. Time and time again we are asked to provide the same
feedback to a different agency, bureau, office, or to Congress. Many of
these issues are fixed, so for the sake of efficiency for everyone, we
would like to stop repeating ourselves.
We also need all federal agencies to take traditional ecological
knowledge seriously. For example, we know that our local forests have
become unhealthy, with excessive undergrowth and greater tree density,
making conditions ripe for intense wildfire that destroys the entire
forest landscape. Moreover, the warming trend will lead to lower
elevation tree species moving upslope which reduces the probability of
success of our reforestation efforts. Changes in vegetation cover, the
adequacy of water supplies, and the frequency and intensity of
wildfires, among other natural phenomena, impact the short-and-long-
term well-being of our tribal communities and members. We are grateful
to the agencies that embrace traditional ecological knowledge so far.
But it is counterproductive to force us to find scientific 'proof' to
demonstrate natural processes we already understand and know the signs
of. The time we spend convincing the Federal Government that what we
say is true is time and money lost for some other important issue.
It is also inherently frustrating to request funding from the
Forest Service, or give testimony to Congress, to address the
devastating effects of wildfires in our region while other federal
agencies continue to prioritize securing oil and gas revenue from their
lands. We have said it before, but it bears repeating: the Federal
Government must take steps to effectively manage the meta-factors that
drive climate change--such as worldwide deforestation, fossil fuel
consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions--before it is too late.
Acting on climate change today is a moral and legal imperative,
essential to all of us as Pueblo People, Americans, and citizens of
this world during a period of what now appears to be almost inevitable
rapid climate change. We need the Federal Government to consider each
project's global carbon footprint. We also need to move to a more
sustainable system in which climatically the actions of one agency do
not negate the actions of another. We need the Federal Government to
aim to be carbon negative if our children are going to have any shot at
a habitable climate.
Finally, addressing water resource issues and combatting wildfires
requires a regional approach. We need increased Federal willingness to
enter into cooperative and interagency agreements for wildfire
mitigation efforts-with Pueblos and Tribes as partners. For example, we
know that decreased precipitation in the mountains and in the north is
affecting atmospheric moisture and snowpack levels which, in turn,
affects the amount of water in our rivers. While the Pueblos have
banded together to address our local needs, we also need the
cooperation of our State, Federal, and local partners upstream. We also
need local tribal members employed in Forest Service regional offices
to hedge against the high rate of staff turnover at the Service and to
ensure continuity of operations and transmission of institutional
knowledge when non-locally based staff leave.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Brian Schatz to
Hon. Harold Frazier
Question 1. Are you aware of any studies on the economic impact of
poor or under-serviced roads in Indian country? If no such study
currently exists, would directing a federal agency to undertake one be
helpful?
Answer. Yes, such a study would be helpful. I am not sure if one
has been done but it is somewhat a matter of common sense that no
business is going to locate on a reservation that does not have good
infrastructure and certainly passable roads are a key component of the
infrastructure any business would need to thrive. The roads on the
Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation certainly hinder economic development.
Not only for the reason stated above but in inclement weather employees
can not always get to work as our roads wash out or are dangerous to
pass, sometimes impossibly so. Clearly that is problem relative to
economic development.
Here is a web address to a report (arguably not a study) published
by the National Congress of American Indians re transportation issues
in Indian county:
https://www.ncai.org/attachments/
PolicyPaper_YqsLwhwKqnsoykhODfdqeLv
PgtHrddwCuXqohOzVyrIdnOXPFpV_NCAI%20Tribal%20Transportation%20Report.pdf
Among other things it references testimony previously provided to
the Senate Indian Affairs from Federal agencies connecting road
conditions to tribal economies. A review of testimony from SCIA
oversight hearings on transportation over the years may also provide
helpful information. Also please see the following web addresses:
https://www.indianz.com/News/2019/04/04/cronkite-news-poor-
reservation-roads-hin.asp
https://talkpoverty.org/2021/03/24/failing-infrastructure-
indigenous-reservations/
https://planning-org-uploaded-media.s3.amazonaws.com/document/
Complete-Streets-on-Indian-Reservations-A-Clear-Need.pdf
https://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2016/10/18/native-
american-reservations-basic-infrastructure.html
https://www.gao.gov/blog/2018/06/28/roads-on-tribal-lands
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Jon Tester to
Hon. Harold Frazier
Question 1. Housing development is one of the biggest problems on
reservations due to the costs of above-ground construction and below-
ground water and sewer infrastructure. Chairman Frazier, would you be
able to tell me what flexibility Tribes need in IHS sanitation funding
and how they would benefit from this flexibility?
Answer. Senator, I appreciate the opportunity to respond to this
important question. For decades, the appropriations bills for the
Indian Health Service facilities (water, sanitation, etc.) have include
the language, below*, effectively blocking the use of nay IHS funds on
housing projects funded by the Native American Housing Assistance and
Self-Determination Act or any other grants provided by HUD. If Congress
would simply remove this language from all future Indian Health Service
appropriations bills, we believe the main problem would be solved. It
would seem to be common sense that HUD and IHS funds could be used
together to build the best, most efficient houses for our people--those
people who are supposed to be the ultimate beneficiaries of both of
these important federal grant programs.
Our TDHE housing development staff is beyond tired of having local
IHS officials tell them no HIS funds can be spent on NAHASDA-funded
housing--particularly since virtually all the new housing at Cheyenne
River for the last 25 years has included some amount of NAHASDA money
to make the project work. Many times, the local HIS officials don't
even know why the prohibition is in place--no one on the ground level
is in the habit of reviewing appropriation bills, they just know that
headquarters in Washington won't let the funds be used for these
projects.
We would appreciate your help, Senator, in making what should be a
simple fix to this problem and freeing these funds to do the most good
for Indian communities.
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (H.R. 2471)--DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE--INDIAN HEALTH
FACILITIES--Pages 872-873
*Provided further that none of the funds appropriated to the Indian
Health Service may be used for sanitation facilities construction for
new homes funded with grants by the housing programs of the United
States Department of Housing and Urban Development.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Brian Schatz to
Timothy Hess
Question 1. How is Department of Transportation working with Native
communities to make sure they are getting sufficient technical
assistance and access to Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA)
resources?
Answer. FHWA developed a publication titled, ``Transportation
Funding Opportunities for Tribal Nations'' (available at Transportation
Funding Opportunities for Tribal Nations). This document provides
information to Tribes on new and existing highway and bridge
transportation funding programs for which Tribes are eligible. This
document outlines the Federal role and assistance, Federal points of
contact, how to access funding, and includes comprehensive descriptions
of both dedicated Tribal programs and other programs for which Tribes
are eligible, such as funding amounts and Federal share. Further, we
have heard from Tribes that it can be challenging to collect data to
complete a Benefit Cost Analysis as part of a grant/funding
application. FHWA's publication notes several funding opportunities
that do not require a Benefit Cost Analysis.
FHWA continues to prioritize technical assistance to Tribes,
recognizing that the significant resources provided by the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law (BIL) for Tribal infrastructure can only achieve
their intended effect if Tribes can take full advantage of these
resources. FHWA provides technical assistance to Tribes across multiple
offices and delivery models, which will help Tribes take full advantage
of these opportunities. In addition, the Department hosted and FHWA
participated in a pre-application informational webinar about the Safe
Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Program specifically for Tribal
governments in April 2022.
FHWA's Office of Tribal Transportation (OTT) administers the Tribal
Transportation Program (TTP) and provides direct funding and technical
assistance to approximately 130 Federally recognized Tribes that have
signed program agreements with FHWA. The OTT assigns a Tribal
Coordinator to each Tribe who is responsible for all stewardship and
oversight activities including technical assistance as needed (or
requested) to help ensure each Tribe is successful in administering
their transportation program and projects. The OTT gives presentations,
provides training, and meets one on one with Tribes at approximately 15
Tribal transportation conferences, workshops, and symposiums across the
country each year. The OTT also maintains an online Program Delivery
Guide to assist Tribes in every aspect of their transportation program
administration and project delivery. The OTT shares news and informs
Tribes of transportation-related funding through a national Tribal
list-serve. In October 2022, FHWA hosted a webinar to review the fiscal
year 2023 TTP Safety Funds notice of funding opportunity for
prospective applicants.
With the assistance of FHWA, Tribes are successfully administering
their Tribal Transportation Programs under BIL. In fiscal year 2022,
FHWA issued nearly $461 million in Tribal shares from the TTP. Under
the TTP Bridge Program, FHWA and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
approved 49 bridge applications for preliminary engineering and
construction projects. These projects received a total of $41.5
million.
FHWA's three Federal Lands Highway Divisions also provide technical
assistance and project delivery services for Tribes in coordination
with the OTT.
The FHWA Office of Transportation Workforce Development and
Technology Deployment Local Aid Support Team delivers the Tribal
component of FHWA's Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP), the TTAP
(Tribal Technical Assistance Program). The TTAP Centers provide Native
American and Alaska Native Tribal governments with training, technical
assistance, and technology services that best meet the needs of Tribal
communities, including on-demand, virtual, and hands-on services that
strengthen Tribal capacity for self-governance of transportation
programs. In January 2022, FHWA published a notice of funding
opportunity (NOFO) announcing the availability of up to $17.8 million
over five years to re-establish and operate seven TTAP centers
throughout the country, aligning with the BIA regions. In November
2022, FHWA announced cooperative agreements re-establishing six
regional TTAP Centers. A NOFO for the final, seventh TTAP Center was
issued in December 2022. These TTAP centers, once fully established,
will coordinate valuable training and technical assistance resources
with a new emphasis on program management and project delivery.
Other DOT modal administrations also support Tribal transportation
programs. For example, NHTSA continues working with BIA to implement
the Tribal traffic safety program under 23 U.S.C. 402. NHTSA offered
expanded technical assistance such as data deep dive analysis and
stakeholder roundtables to help State and Territorial highway safety
offices, including BIA, strengthen their programs. NHTSA also appointed
Tribal safety program coordinators in each regional office to engage
with Tribal communities and encourage State highway safety offices to
do the same. In early November 2022, NHTSA supported a Tribal Safety
Summit hosted by the Tribal Injury Prevention Resource Center by
organizing sessions and providing moderators and speakers.
Question 2. On January 24, 2022, the Federal Highway Administration
announced that it will make $17.8 million dollars available over the
next five years to re-establish seven Tribal Technical Assistance
Centers across the country. Based on the demand and usage of these
centers, is this amount sufficient to meet the technical assistance
needs of Tribes? Has the Department heard requests from Tribal leaders
for more centers near Native communities?
Answer. FHWA agrees that it is of critical importance to provide
technical assistance to Tribes and FHWA has a long history of doing so,
including through the TTAP program. The TTAP program is funded as part
of FHWA's Training and Education program, which provides a wide variety
of services and products. The amount available under the notice of
funding opportunity (NOFO), which closed on May 2, 2022, represents a
critical investment in TTAP Centers as part of FHWA's Training and
Education program. This NOFO announced the re-establishment of seven
regional TTAP Centers, aligning with the BIA regions and serving the
associated 574 American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal governments.
FHWA completed technical evaluations for the applications received in
response to the TTAP Center NOFO, and, in November 2022, announced
cooperative agreements re-establishing six regional TTAP Centers. FHWA
published a separate NOFO to solicit applications for the seventh,
Eastern TTAP Center award in December 2022. We look forward to re-
establishing TTAP Centers across the country and we will continue to
evaluate resource needs for Tribal technical assistance. The TTAP
budget is sufficient. Once the TTAP Centers are fully stood up, FHWA
will be able to effectively evaluate the demand for Tribal technical
assistance. A Federal Register notice was published in August 2020 to
inform the direction of the TTAP. This notice requested comments
directly from Tribes. Tribal comments received reflected a desire to
return to a local delivery model with regional TTAP Centers. The TTAP
Center NOFO issued in January 2022 reflects the Tribes' comments and
request for locally delivered TTAP services aligned with BIA regions.
Question 3. How is the Department of Transportation supporting
Tribal efforts to ensure new surface infrastructure is climate and
natural disaster resilient?
Answer. Resiliency is an emphasis area for the Department of
Transportation. There are many positive examples of Tribes using Tribal
Transportation Program funds and other transportation funds to improve
resilience, and the Department will continue to support Tribes in their
efforts to make Tribal surface transportation infrastructure resilient,
including by providing technical assistance. The increased funding
provided by BIL will provide more opportunity for Tribes to increase
the resiliency of surface transportation. The BIL created new
discretionary grant program opportunities to address resiliency such as
the new Promoting Resilient Operations for Transformative, Efficient,
and Cost-saving Transportation (PROTECT) discretionary grant program.
This program will fund projects relating to resilience, including
planning, improvements, community resilience and evacuation routes, and
at-risk coastal infrastructure.
FHWA will also be revising our emergency relief manual to support
incorporating resilience into emergency relief projects, and to develop
best practices for improving the use of resilience in the emergency
relief program. Information developed from this effort will be made
available for Tribes' use.
FHWA is currently conducting research by applying FHWA's
Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation Framework to selected Tribes'
transportation systems to assess their vulnerability to extreme weather
and climate effects. The goal of the research is to develop a summary
report identifying unique challenges, lessons learned, and
recommendations to improve the development of future climate
vulnerability assessments of Tribal transportation. Tribes
participating in the research are Karuk in CA, Kwigillingok in AK,
Mescalero Apache in NM, Oglala Sioux in SD, Coushatta in LA, and Ottowa
and Modoc in OK. The research will help the participating Tribes
identify, analyze, and prioritize adaptation options, substantively
informing their transportation decisions.
Question 4. The IIJA included funding for the Promoting Resilient
Operations for Transformative, Efficient, and Cost-saving
Transportation (PROTECT) grant program, a new grant program for
planning grants to enable communities to assess climate vulnerabilities
and improvement grants to protect surface transportation assets. What
is the status of the Tribal allocations under this program?
Answer. A notice of funding opportunity will be released for the
PROTECT discretionary grant funding to provide guidance and denote
selection criteria consistent with BIL. The BIL requires that, of the
amounts made available to carry out the PROTECT discretionary grant
program for each fiscal year, the Secretary shall use not less than 2
percent for grants to Indian tribes (as defined in 23 U.S.C.
207(m)(1)). FHWA knows how critically important infrastructure funding
is to Tribal governments, and we are working to make these funding
opportunities available as quickly as possible.
Question 4a. Please provide details on the Department of
Transportation's plans for ensuring Tribes have access to this program,
any plans to engage in Tribal consultation on the development of this
program, and the timeline for deployment of Tribal applications and
awards under this program.
Answer. FHWA is providing details on all discretionary and
competitive opportunities to Tribes as they are made available. We
developed a Tribal Funding brochure, ``Transportation Funding
Opportunities for Tribal Nations'' (available at Transportation Funding
Opportunities for Tribal Nations), and current funding information is
provided on our website. FHWA distributes details on funding programs
and opportunities through our e-mail listserve, to the Tribal
Transportation Program Coordinating Committee), at Tribal workshops and
conferences, and during on-site visits to Tribal offices. We also
provide webinars and consultation opportunities for Tribes.
As noted above, a notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) will be
released for the PROTECT discretionary grant funding. FHWA will work to
promote the NOFO and will coordinate with FHWA's Office of Tribal
Transportation and our Division Offices to ensure the Tribes have the
information they need to apply.
Question 5. What is the Department of Transportation doing to
ensure Tribal roads are safer for drivers and pedestrians? What
programs within the Department can Tribes access to do things like
build sidewalks, install guardrails, and improve the safety of their
roads?
Answer. Safety is the Department's top priority and we are
committed to improving safety and reducing fatalities on roads in
Tribal areas. FHWA provides technical assistance, including a Safety
Plan Toolkit, to assist Tribes in the development of transportation
safety plans. Funding assistance has also been requested by and
provided to more than 75 percent of all Federally recognized Tribes to
develop transportation safety plans.
There are several programs that will help make Tribal roads safer.
For example, the Tribal Transportation Program Safety Fund (TTPSF) is
dedicated to preventing and reducing transportation-related injuries
and fatalities on Tribal lands. Funding for the TTPSF more than doubled
in BIL, moving from a two percent set-aside from TTP funding to four
percent. This increase means that, for fiscal year 2022, up to $23
million in grant funding is available to Tribes, compared to $9 million
in fiscal year 2021. FHWA announced the TTPSF awards for fiscal year
2021 on May 4, 2022. FHWA announced awards to 51 Tribes, with $8.9
million awarded for 58 safety projects. FHWA published the fiscal year
2022-2026 TTPSF notice of funding opportunity on June 7, 2022.
Applications for the fiscal year 2022 funding were due on September 15,
2022 and FHWA is accepting applications for the fiscal year 2023
funding cycle through January 15, 2023. In addition, Tribes may use
their TTP Tribal shares for safety projects.
Safety projects on Tribal lands are also eligible for funding under
other programs. For example, the Highway Safety Improvement Program
(HSIP) provides resources to achieve a significant reduction in traffic
fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads, including roads on
Tribal land. The BIL substantially increased HSIP funds. Certain safety
projects on Tribal lands, such as Safe Routes to School projects, may
also be eligible under the Transportation Alternatives set-aside of the
Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) Program.
Tribal safety projects may also be funded under various
discretionary grant programs. The BIL established the SS4A Program and
provided $5 billion over five years to develop comprehensive safety
action plans (CSAP); conduct planning, design, and development
activities for projects and activities contained in a CSAP; or to carry
out projects and strategies identified in a CSAP. Tribes are eligible
to apply for SS4A funds. The Department hosted a pre-solicitation
outreach webinar about the SS4A Program specifically for Tribal
governments on April 28, 2022. The Department published the notice of
funding opportunity (NOFO) for the SS4A Program on May 16, 2022, and
anticipates that award selections will be made for the fiscal year 2022
funding round in early 2023. Safety projects may also be eligible under
the Rural Surface Transportation Grant Program, established under BIL.
Tribal governments are eligible applicants under this program. The
Rural Surface Transportation Grant Program was included in the
Multimodal Project Discretionary Grant Opportunity (MPDG) NOFO
published in March 2022.
In addition to the increased funding opportunities made available
by BIL, FHWA is also working in collaboration with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to identify best practices in
Tribal crash reporting as required under BIL, to ensure that data
surrounding transportation safety in Tribal areas is accurate and
comprehensive. In June 2022, NHTSA, in partnership with FHWA, published
a Tribal Crash Reporting Toolkit that contains a standardized crash
report form for use by Indian tribes and Alaska Native communities, a
database to store completed crash report forms, a crash reporting self-
assessment tool for Tribes, and several guides to help Tribes implement
better crash reporting and analysis (available at https://
www.tribalsafety.org/tribal-crash-reporting-toolkit). NHTSA also
supports Tribal transportation safety in other ways, as described in
the response to Question 1, though NHTSA's funds can only be used for
behavioral safety projects and not for construction-related projects
such as sidewalks or guardrails.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Steve Daines to
Timothy Hess
Question 1. Under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, a new
Assistant Secretary, Office of Tribal Government Affairs at USDOT was
created. What is that office doing to ensure access to these programs
are available to Montana tribes?
Answer. The Office of Tribal Government Affairs has worked to
engage all of our Tribal partners, including Tribes located in Montana.
The Office has hosted a series of engagements such as having the Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Tribal Affairs host six Tribal Consultations,
two Tribal Roundtables, and the first Tribal Aviation Symposium. At
these events, the Department presented on the opportunities created
under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL).
The Office of Tribal Government Affairs has also worked with our
Tribal Organization partners and presented or is planning to present at
their conferences on the opportunities under BIL. These Tribal
Organizations include the National Congress of American Indians; Inter-
Tribal Transportation Association; Self Governance Advisory Committee;
and National Transportation in Indian Country Conference. Recently, the
Office of Tribal Government Affairs hosted a Tribal Transportation
Summit in Albuquerque, New Mexico on October 25-26, 2022. FHWA
participated in this Summit. The Summit convened federal and state
transportation officials and Tribal leaders to cover federal funding
opportunities for infrastructure that are available to Tribes from the
Department of Transportation through BIL.
Additionally, Secretary Buttigieg was the speaker at the first
Tribal Leader Engagement Session hosted by the White House Council on
Native American Affairs (WHCNAA) in January 2022, where all Tribes were
invited. In August 2022, Secretary Buttigieg was the keynote speaker
for the National Transportation in Indian Country Conference.
To spread the word for these engagements, the Department notifies
our Tribal partners via email and keeps Tribal Organizations up to date
so they may share the information. The Department also works internally
with our Federal partners (such as the WHCNAA, White House Tribal
Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, and White House Tribal Domestic
Policy Council) and they may spread the information as well.
Lastly, the Office of Tribal Government Affairs will engage and or
consult with any Tribe that requests.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Brian Schatz to
Garret Yoshimi
Question 1. Will the Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program funds
boost the impact of the Bridging Equity, Access, & Deployment (BEAD)
and Middle Mile programs funds for Native Hawaiian communities? Is the
state planning to use those funds for digital and undersea cables?
Answer. Hawai`i is committed to fully leveraging the combined
investment from the collection of federal broadband connectivity and
adoption funding programs, including the Tribal Broadband Connectivity
(TBC) Program, the Bridging Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD)
Program and the Middle Mile Broadband Infrastructure Grant (MMG)
Program, to maximally benefit all of Hawai`i's residents, including our
Native Hawaiian communities. Coordination of our efforts across these
programs will allow us to deliver benefits to support the program-
designated areas of need and, in the case of the TBC, provide direct
focus on benefits to our Native Hawaiian communities. We are working
with the Department of Hawaiian Homelands (DHHL) to support their
efforts directly serving our Native Hawaiian communities and to
coordinate cross-program benefits through efficient sharing of capacity
and gaining economies of scale. For example, while we need to watch for
duplication of efforts, the layering of statewide digital literacy
efforts together with the DHHL programs directly focused on benefitting
our Native Hawaiian communities will definitely boost the impact of the
collection of broadband programs.
Planning for the specific projects is well underway, with expected
investment in submarine and terrestrial middle mile cables from the
U.S. Treasury Coronavirus Capital Projects Fund (CCPF), MMG, BEAD and
TBC programs. We are also working to potentially leverage private
sector capital funds to extend the benefit of the public investments,
and we are utilizing Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds
(CSLFRF) from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) to support our work.
We recently entered into an agreement to conduct cable landing station
site surveys and complete inter-island submarine cable system design
desktop study, with field work to be completed in June, and final
reports due later this summer, funded by CSLFRF. CSLFRF will also be
used, at least in part, as the required matching funds for the state's
BEAD investments.
Hawai`i's coordinated approach to making these strategic broadband
investments will provide direct and substantial benefits to our Native
Hawaiian communities, including robust and more reliable broadband, and
widespread digital literacy as a result of these efforts. Our approach
emphasizes the critical need to include community-based wrap-around
services addressing digital equity and literacy needs to ensure broad
adoption and use of broadband services. The balanced investment in
human and technological infrastructure will help guarantee that our
Native Hawaiian communities will substantially benefit from this once-
in-a-lifetime public investment.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Ben Ray Lujan to
Timothy Hess
Tribal engagement
The passage of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act was a
once in a generation opportunity to address the critical infrastructure
needs of this country. An important mission of that legislation was to
deliver much needed resources to historically underserved communities
that have for too long faced extreme difficulties in accessing these
important funds.
However, Tribal communities continue to face difficulties in
navigating the application process. They also face challenges regarding
cost share responsibilities, late access to application information and
the increased burden and staffing resources needed to apply for funds.
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law elevated the Tribal Government
Affairs leadership to the rank of Assistant Secretary within the U.S.
Department of Transportation and the created the Office of Tribal
Government Affairs. However, I continue to hear from Tribes and Pueblos
in my state that they have not any outreach from the Department of
Transportation. This lack of engagement results in Tribes having less
access to infrastructure funding despite dire needs.
Question 1. Mr. Hess, how is technical assistance being provided in
a proactive manner with advance notice of funding opportunities, so
that Tribes have enough time to apply?
Answer. FHWA developed a publication titled, ``Transportation
Funding Opportunities for Tribal Nations'' (available at Transportation
Funding Opportunities for Tribal Nations). This document provides
information to Tribes on new and existing highway and bridge
transportation funding programs for which Tribes are eligible. This
document outlines the Federal role and assistance, Federal points of
contact, how to access funding, and includes comprehensive descriptions
of both dedicated Tribal programs and other programs for which Tribes
are eligible, such as funding amounts and Federal share. Further, we
have heard from Tribes that it can be challenging to collect data to
complete a Benefit Cost Analysis as part of a grant/funding
application. FHWA's publication notes several funding opportunities
that do not require a Benefit Cost Analysis.
FHWA continues to prioritize technical assistance to Tribes,
recognizing that the significant resources provided by the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law (BIL) for Tribal infrastructure can only achieve
their intended effect if Tribes can take full advantage of these
resources. FHWA provides technical assistance to Tribes across multiple
offices and delivery models, which will help Tribes take full advantage
of these opportunities. In addition, the Department hosted and FHWA
participated in a pre-application informational webinar about the Safe
Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Program specifically for Tribal
governments in April 2022.
FHWA's Office of Tribal Transportation (OTT) administers the Tribal
Transportation Program (TTP) and provides direct funding and technical
assistance to approximately 130 Federally recognized Tribes that have
signed program agreements with FHWA. The OTT assigns a Tribal
Coordinator to each Tribe who is responsible for all stewardship and
oversight activities including technical assistance as needed (or
requested) to help ensure each Tribe is successful in administering
their transportation program and projects. The OTT gives presentations,
provides training, and meets one on one with Tribes at approximately 15
Tribal transportation conferences, workshops, and symposiums across the
country each year. The OTT also maintains an online Program Delivery
Guide to assist Tribes in every aspect of their transportation program
administration and project delivery. The OTT shares news and informs
Tribes of transportation-related funding through a national Tribal
list-serve. In October 2022, FHWA hosted a webinar to review the fiscal
year (FY) 2023 TTP Safety Funds notice of funding opportunity for
prospective applicants.
With the assistance of FHWA, Tribes are successfully administering
their Tribal Transportation Programs under BIL. In FY 2022, FHWA issued
nearly $461 million in Tribal shares from the TTP. Under the TTP Bridge
Program FHWA and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) approved 49 bridge
applications for preliminary engineering and construction projects.
These projects received a total of $41.5 million.
Following up on our discussion at the hearing, the week of October
31st, 2022, I met with six Pueblos in New Mexico: Pueblo of Zuni, Ramah
Navajo, Pueblo of Jemez, Pueblo of Acoma, Pueblo of Sandia, and Pueblo
of Isleta. The purpose of these visits was to meet one on one with the
Pueblos, to discuss Tribal transportation challenges, to promote the
``Transportation Funding Opportunities for Tribal Nations'' brochure
and to encourage Tribes to maximize the BIL opportunities through
discretionary grants. I also met with the FHWA New Mexico Federal-aid
division to discuss BIL implementation for Tribes.
FHWA's three Federal Lands Highway Divisions also provide technical
assistance and project delivery services for Tribes in coordination
with the OTT.
The FHWA Office of Transportation Workforce Development and
Technology Deployment Local Aid Support Team delivers the Tribal
component of FHWA's Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP), the TTAP
(Tribal Technical Assistance Program). The TTAP Centers provide Native
American and Alaska Native Tribal governments with training, technical
assistance, and technology services that best meet the needs of Tribal
communities, including on-demand, virtual, and hands-on services that
strengthen Tribal capacity for self-governance of transportation
programs. In January 2022, FHWA published a notice of funding
opportunity (NOFO) announcing the availability of up to $17.8 million
over five years to re-establish and operate seven TTAP centers
throughout the country, aligning with the BIA regions. FHWA completed
technical evaluations for the applications received in response to the
TTAP Center NOFO, and in November 2022, announced cooperative
agreements re-establishing six regional TTAP Centers. These TTAP
centers include the Southwestern TTAP Center which serves the Navajo
and Southwest BIA regions in the States of New Mexico, Colorado, and
Arizona. FHWA published a separate NOFO to solicit applications for the
seventh, Eastern TTAP Center award in December 2022. These TTAP
centers, once fully established, will coordinate valuable training and
technical assistance resources with a new emphasis on program
management and project delivery.
Despite the historic investment in bridge infrastructure,
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law funding is not sufficient nor timely
enough to fix all bridges in poor condition on Tribal lands. When you
don't repair these bridges in a timely manner, it becomes more
expensive to fix them.
I know from experience that the lack of coordination between
federal, state and Tribal agencies can hinder project completion. For
example, the New Mexico Manuelito Bridge Groundbreaking Ceremony in
September 2021 on the Navajo Nation capped off an over decade-long
journey to repair and replace a bridge that was washed out in 2010. It
took me bringing together federal, state and Tribal stakeholders before
the FEMA funding was set to expire to make sure funding deadlines were
met. The Manuelito bridge is an excellent case study in the
coordination challenges that Tribes and agencies face to get basic
infrastructure projects completed in time.
Question 2. Mr. Hess, how will the Federal Highway Administration
work with other federal agencies, states, and Tribes to ensure
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law projects, such as programs for highways
and bridges, are completed in a timely manner.
Answer. The FHWA has a long-standing history of working with BIA
through the joint administration of the TTP. The success of the joint
administration of the TTP is facilitated through close coordination,
constant communication, and a mutual professional respect between FHWA
and BIA staff. This partnership continues to be critical with the
passage of BIL and the development of new implementation policy and
guidance.
The FHWA and BIA are working together to ensure Tribes are aware of
funding opportunities made available by BIL, for example, the
significantly increased funding made available for the Tribal
Transportation Facility Bridge Program (TTBP). The FHWA identified all
TTP bridges classified in poor condition in the National Bridge
Inventory and, together with the BIA, is providing technical assistance
to Tribes in developing TTBP applications to proactively advance bridge
projects. To implement section 14003 of BIL, addressing programmatic
agreements for Tribal categorical exclusions, FHWA is also working with
the BIA to develop a template for programmatic agreements for
categorical exclusions that can be adapted for use by individual
Tribes. These actions are examples of how FHWA is working to accelerate
infrastructure completion timelines.
The FHWA has program agreements with approximately 130 Federally
recognized Tribes. The FHWA recognizes Tribes as sovereign nations and
as such provides technical assistance and capacity building in support
of Tribal self-determination. FHWA program agreement Tribes administer
their individual Tribal Transportation Programs and are responsible for
most project activities except for those inherently federal. FHWA
program agreement Tribes identify, prioritize, schedule, manage, and
construct their own projects. The FHWA's role is to provide stewardship
and oversight to Tribes for pre-existing and BIL related programs and
FHWA does so across multiple offices and delivery models. In addition
to providing technical assistance in advance of funding opportunities,
the Offices discussed in the response to Question 1 also provide
technical assistance and informational resources to advance project
delivery.
In addition, FHWA has Federal-Aid Division Offices in every State.
While the Federal-Aid Division Offices primarily provide stewardship
and oversight to State Departments of Transportation (DOT), they assist
State DOTs in project and programmatic consultation with Tribes. They
also, in coordination with the OTT, work with State DOTs and Tribes to
overcome challenges that could affect timely project completion.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Brian Schatz to
Wizipan Garriott
Question 1. In 2018, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) conducted a
road maintenance needs survey. That survey determined that an estimated
value for def erred road maintenance was $498 million. To the
Committee's knowledge, the BIA has not conducted any subsequent surveys
on this matter. Does the BIA plan to conduct another road maintenance
survey to get a new estimate for deferred road maintenance needs? If
so, when will the new survey be released?
Answer. It is important to note that the 2018 survey included not
only BIA roads, but Tribal, state and county and other Federal land
management agency roads within each particular jurisdiction. No
subsequent surveys on all deferred maintenance have been conducted
since the 2018 survey.
The BIA regularly assesses the def erred maintenance costs and
provides an annual report each fiscal year based on regular condition
assessments on BIA roads only. The FY 2021 reported deferred
maintenance for BIA roads is $400.1 million.
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) requires the BIA to perform
a study, in consultation with the Federal Highway Administration, and
in consultation with Tribes to evaluate--
1. The long-term viability and useful life of existing roads on
Indian land;
2. Any steps necessary to achieve the goal of addressing the
deferred maintenance backlog of existing roads on Indian land;
3. Programmatic reforms and performance enhancements necessary
to achieve the goal of restructuring and streamlining road
maintenance programs on existing or future roads located on
Indian land; and
4. Recommendations on how to implement efforts to coordinate
with States, counties, municipalities, and other units of local
government to maintain roads on Indian land. BIA is in the
beginning stages of carrying out the BIL required survey and
plans to complete the survey by November 2023.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Steve Daines to
Wizipan Garriott
Question 1. Montana tribes do not have the same capability to
compete for grants that states such as New York and California have.
What is DOI doing to assist tribes in rural states like Montana to
ensure fair access to grants?
Answer. The Department, consistent with the Administration's
commitment to engage in meaningful consultation with Tribal
governments, engages regularly with Indian Tribes in the administration
of funding opportunities available to Tribal governments. Regular and
meaningful Tribal consultation serves a dual purpose to both inform and
elevate awareness among Tribal governments about funding opportunities,
but also to receive comments and insight on how funding opportunities
and programs can be implemented in a manner which best serves Indian
Country and the communities intended to be impacted by the policies or
programs which are the subject of the consultation.
Furthermore, the White House Council on Native American Affairs
(WHCNAA), housed within the Department of the Interior, as part of its
core duties regularly collaborates with other Federal agencies across
the Executive Branch to ensure that funding streams available to Tribal
governments are accessible--this includes coordination on grants and
similar opportunities that are not exclusively offered to Tribal
governments. The WHCNAA is comprised of six committees, including
Climate Change, Tribal Homelands, and Treaties; Health; Education;
Economic Development, Energy, and Infrastructure; Public Safety and
Justice; and International Indigenous Issues. The WHCNAA convenes the
principals, i.e., the Cabinet-level officials, at least three times a
year to collaborate on the Administration's priorities and to ensure
that Tribal governments have equitable access to all funding streams,
grants, and opportunities which are available through the federal
government.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Ben Ray Lujan to
Wizipan Garriott
Indian irrigation report and funding
In 2009, Senator Jeff Bingaman worked to include the Rio Grande
Pueblos Irrigation Infrastructure Act (RGPIIA) in the Omnibus Public
Lands package that President Obama signed into law.
The RGPIIA directed the Interior Department, in consultation with
the Pueblos of the Rio Grande Basin, to: study the Pueblo irrigation
infrastructure; develop a list of projects (including a cost estimate
for each project) that are recommended to be implemented over a 10-year
period to repair, rehabilitate, or reconstruct Pueblo irrigation
infrastructure; and implement projects to rehabilitate and improve the
irrigation infrastructure.
The RGPIIA required the Interior Department to complete the study
no later than 2 years from enactment of the law. However, no federal
funding was appropriated to conduct the study until 2012. As a result,
the study was significantly delayed.
As Chairman Mitchell notes in his testimony, in 2017 this report
entitled ``Irrigation Infrastructure Report for the Rio Grande
Pueblos'' was finalized. It identified nearly $280 million of
irrigation improvements needed on Pueblo lands. However, this report
still sits unsigned at the Department of the Interior. Pueblos in New
Mexico have been waiting on the final issuance this federal report on
Indian irrigation projects for a decade.
Question 1. Mr. Garriott, when will Secretary Haaland sign this
report and Interior publicly release it?
Answer. On June 4, 2022, the report was transmitted to Congress.
This constitutes finalization of the initial study report required by
the Rio Grande Pueblos Irrigation Infrastructure Act and the report was
provided electronically to representatives of the 18 Pueblos within the
Rio Grande Basin on June 9, 2022.
In the BIA's Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) initial spend
plan, $7 million per year is reserved for Indian Irrigation Projects.
This funding will help address the country's backlog of operation and
maintenance needs for Indian Irrigation Projects, which continues to
grow because of inflation and a lack of necessary funding. In many
instances deferred maintenance needs also include improving worker
safety in and around Indian Irrigation projects and funding necessary
to bring these projects up to modern safety codes.
However, more funding is needed. In New Mexico, for example, the
Navajo Indian Irrigation Project (NIIP) is in need of critical
maintenance with costs far exceeding $7 million. A 2016 Engineering
Evaluation and Condition Assessment report conducted by the BIA
identified over $175 million in remediation costs resulting from an
extensive deferred federal maintenance backlog for the NIIP.
As part of the BIL, there is significant funding provided to the
Bureau of Reclamation to support water infrastructure projects,
including $3 billion under the aging infrastructure program. One
section of the aging infrastructure program specifically provides for
``resolving significant reserved and transferred works failures that
occurred in the last two years in a way that prevented delivery of
water for irrigation.'' However, while this and other issues listed
under the aging infrastructure program affect Indian Irrigation
Projects, such projects are not eligible for BOR funding from the BIL
at this time.
Question 2. Mr. Garriott, will the Department of Interior and
Bureau of Reclamation allow Indian Irrigation Projects to be eligible
to apply for BIL funding provided to Reclamation, including the $3
billion allocated to the aging infrastructure program? If not, why?
Answer. Tribes are eligible to apply for a large number of
Reclamation's BIL funding opportunities regardless of Indian irrigation
project ownership status. Eligible Tribal funding opportunities include
but are not limited to: the competitive grant program for Small Water
Storage and Groundwater Storage Projects (BIL section 40903), the
competitive grant program for Multi-Benefit Projects to Improve
Watershed Health (BIL section 40907), and the Federal Assistance for
Groundwater Recharge, Aquifer Storage, and Water Source Substitution
Projects (BIL section 40910). Other BIL funding must be used on
Reclamation-owned infrastructure, including the BIL's $3 billion
authorized for Aging Infrastructure (BIL sections 40901(2), 40904).
Question 3. Mr. Garriott, will the Department of Interior and
Bureau of Reclamation allow Indian Irrigation projects to be eligible
to apply for funding in the Dam and Water Projects program of the BIL?
If not, why?
Answer. If the question is referring to the BIL section 40901(6)'s
$500 million authorized for the Reclamation dam safety program, then it
is required by statute for use on Reclamation-owned dams in accordance
with the Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978 (43 U.S.C. 506 et.
seq.). As such, unless the Indian Irrigation Project includes a
Reclamation-owned dam, it would not be eligible. While Tribally owned
irrigation projects may not be eligible for Reclamation's dam funds,
Tribally owned dams may be eligible for the BIL' s appropriations for
the BIA Safety of Dams program (BIL Division J, Title VI, Indian
Affairs).
If the question is referring to Section 40902--Water Storage,
Groundwater Storage, and Conveyance Projects--then any Tribal storage
or conveyance project (1) authorized by an act of Congress prior to the
BIL enactment and (2) Congress approved funding for the feasibility
study or construction in accordance with section 4007 of the Water
Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act (43 U.S.C. 390b note;
Public Law 114-322) prior to the BIL enactment, would be eligible for
funding with a non-federal cost share of at least 50 percent.
Question 4. Mr. Garriott, if the answers to questions 2 and 3 are
no, how do you plan to fund critical maintenance needs for Tribal
irrigation projects?
Answer. Reclamation is actively working to support Tribes in
seeking additional funding opportunities to address Tribal irrigation
infrastructure needs--this includes Reclamation's Native American
Technical Assistance Program as well as the WaterSMART program.
Specifically for the Pueblos of the Rio Grande Basin, this includes
coordination and technical assistance for collaboration, partnering,
and funding with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Acequias Program,
Natural Resources Conservation Service Environmental Quality Incentives
Program, and the State of New Mexico, in addition to Reclamation's
programs and funding. Additionally, BIA receives critical maintenance
and rehabilitation appropriations for its 17 BIAowned irrigation
projects under three separate authorities:
1. Irrigation Projects-Rehabilitation, 25 U.S.C. Chapter 11 (
381-390)--Irrigation of Allotted Lands.
2. Public Law 114-322, Water Infrastructure Improvements for
the Nation Act, Title III, Subtitle B, Parts I & II, as
amended; and
3. Public Law 117-58, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
(BIL); Division JAppropriations, Title VI-Department of the
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies.
The above BIA rehabilitation funding is distributed among its 17
irrigation projects pursuant to each authorization's eligibility and
prioritization requirements and the Department's spending plan reports
submitted to Congress. In general, BIA distributes funds to activities
that reduce the risk of failure, reduce deferred maintenance, and align
with BIA' s technical studies. BIA aims to prioritize the most critical
infrastructure needs at all 17 BIA-owned irrigation projects.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Brian Schatz to
Elizabeth Fowler
Question 1. What is the current staff vacancy rate within the IHS
Sanitation Facilities Construction Program (SFCP)? Will the increased
funding provided for SFCP projects by the IIJA require additional staff
resources to ensure timely deployment? If so, please provide additional
information on these staffing needs.
Answer. Based on an April 2022 survey of the SFCP there are over
143 federal staff vacancies across multiple job series including
vacancies for engineers, technicians, inspectors, administrative
support, surveyors, and geospatial information systems analysts. These
vacancies represented a vacancy rate of 27 percent across the SFC
Program. In April 2022, the IHS estimated that in addition to filling
143 existing vacancies within the SFCP there would be a need for
additional staff to support the increased work associated with the
increased levels of funding from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
Act. Without these staff, the project completion time would potentially
increase beyond the IHS' current project duration of 3.6 years.
Question 2. My understanding is that RPMS, the current Indian
Health Service (IHS) electronic health record system, is over 50 years
old. How does the age of this system affect the ability of the Service
to expand telehealth and modernize patient care?
Answer. Although the origins of the Resource and Patient Management
System (RPMS) were decades ago as noted, the system has been
continuously updated over the years to adapt to changes in health care
practice, statutory and regulatory requirements, data and terminology
standards, and technology advances, to the extent possible. That said,
the age, underlying technology, and deployment model of RPMS constrain
its ability to support telehealth and overall patient care in numerous
ways, such as:
RPMS does not support the full functionalities of tablets
and other mobile devices. This imposes substantial constraints
on the usability of RPMS for clinicians whether they are in the
facility (on a hospital floor or Emergency Department), or
remote (e.g., after hours or providing telehealth services from
home).
RPMS does not integrate with modern telehealth platforms.
Telehealth is an important component of care in Indian Country,
but data sharing between the telehealth modality and RPMS does
not occur at present. This limitation affects patient
scheduling, messaging, and transmitting patient-generated data
such as measurements and images.
RPMS uses a distributed deployment model, and each federal
Service Unit, tribe, or urban Indian organization that uses
RPMS has a unique instance of the system. True interoperability
between distinct RPMS databases does not exist. This creates
significant challenges for care coordination as well as the
ability for consulting specialists to provide services to
multiple sites.
The internally-developed patient portal used with RPMS has
numerous limitations relating to patient scheduling, medication
management, care team messaging and notifications, and device
compatibility.
The above are a subset of issues specific to the above question
that relate to the outdated technology, development, and support models
on which RPMS is dependent. It is primarily for these reasons that the
IHS has embarked on the multi-year Health Information Technology
Modernization initiative with which the Committee members are familiar.
Question 3. How is the IHS working with other federal agencies,
like the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, to
make sure federal broadband investments are expanding telehealth access
in Native communities?
Answer. Telehealth expansion is vital to support access to care to
the American Indian and Alaska Native population during the pandemic's
public health emergency (PHE) and afterwards. Many American Indians and
Alaska Natives live in rural areas, and the realities of the digital
divide are apparent when providing care utilizing telehealth because of
poor connectivity and bandwidth, and the limited availability of smart
devices in the communities the Indian Health Service (IHS) serves.
Throughout the PHE, a majority of virtual care at IHS has been via
telephone/audio-only (i.e. approximately 80 percent of telehealth visit
use audio only).
The IHS works with other departments and agencies across the
Federal Government to support telehealth expansion and identify
broadband investments available to help Native communities. The IHS has
actively participated in the HHS Telehealth Workgroup, where federal
agencies address waivers and flexibilities, broadband needs, and
federal policies that should be revised/updated to support telehealth
expansion.
The IHS collaborates with the Department of Commerce, National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). As of April
2022, the IHS began participating in biweekly meetings with the Federal
Communications Commission and the NTIA. These meetings provide valuable
information/updates on the work taking place to improve rural broadband
access and expand broadband connection in rural areas.
The NTIA reported receiving approximately three billion dollars in
funding from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), the
Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, and
the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, P.L. 116-260. These funds
will support tribal broadband, including infrastructure and telehealth.
With the designated funding, NTIA is developing the Tribal
Broadband Connectivity Program (TBCP), a $1 billion program directed to
tribal governments to be used for broadband deployment on tribal lands.
\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ More information available at https://
broadbandusa.ntia.doc.gov/resources/tribal-nations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NTIA released resource information on funding opportunities in the
launching of Internet for All and informed IHS about three Notices of
Funding Opportunity:
Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program
($42.5 billion);
Enabling Middle Mile Broadband Infrastructure Program ($1
billion); and,
State Digital Equity Act programs ($1.5 billion).
Also, NTIA shared with IHS that Tribal broadband planning toolkit
resources are available:
Information about Tribal broadband planning toolkit,
available at https://broadbandusa.ntia.doc.gov/news/latest-
news/introducing-tribal-broadband-planning-toolkit
Tribal Broadband Planning Toolkit, available at https://
broadbandusa.ntia.doc.gov/sites/default/files/2022-05/
Tribal%20Broadband%20Planning%20Toolkit%20%28PDF%29_1.pdf.
The IHS has conveyed this information about Internet for All and
Tribal Broadband Planning Toolkit at internal IHS leadership meetings.
This information was also shared in the Acting Director's IHS Week in
Review (week of June 12, 2022) In terms of additional collaboration
with other agencies, the IHS informally meets weekly with Federal
telehealth subject matter experts from across HHS to share the various
telehealth work taking place and resources available.
Question 4. The American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) temporarily
authorized 100 percent federal medical assistance percentage (FMAP) for
urban Indian organization (UIOs) and Native Hawaiian health centers.
The Committee has heard that some UIOs are encountering difficulties
working with states on implementation of this provision. In light of
the Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) federal trust
responsibilities, what roles are the IHS and the HHS taking to support
improved cooperation between states and UIOs for implementation of this
authority?
Answer. The ARPA provision you are asking about temporarily changes
the federal medical assistance percentage that states receive for
Medicaid medical assistance expenditures for services received through
UIOs. The provision is silent about the payment rates states opt to pay
to UIOs. States have the discretion to set and adjust Medicaid provider
payment rates, consistent with section 1902(a)(30)(A) of the Social
Security Act, as long as the state payment rates are consistent with
efficiency, economy, and quality of care and are sufficient to enlist
enough providers so that care and services are available under the
Medicaid state plan at least to the extent that such care and services
are available to the general population in the geographic area. In an
August 30, 2021 State Health Official Letter, CMS offered to provide
technical assistance to states that believe adjusting their
reimbursement rates for UIOs is appropriate. See https://
www.medicaid.gov/federal-policy-guidance/downloads/sho-21-004.pdf.
Question 5. The Committee has heard from several UIOs about delayed
ARPA funds. Is it accurate that some UIOs have been waiting over a year
to receive their ARPA funds? If so, please explain why these delays
have occurred, and provide an estimate of when IHS will release these
delayed funds to their respective UIOs.
Answer. The IHS has distributed ARPA funds to 80 percent of UIOs.
There have been delays in obligating construction-related funding due
to the time needed for the Agency to review the authorities under
Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act
(CRRSAA), American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), and the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) to ensure construction-related
activities are consistent with the purposes of each funding source. On
November 15, 2021, the IIJA amended the IHCIA provision at 25 U.S.C.
1659; and construction-related activities are no longer
required to be solely for the purpose of meeting or maintaining The
Joint Commission standards.The IHS Areas and UIOs will continue to
finalize construction proposals for contract awards.
Other UIOs have not submitted scopes of work and budgets to
finalize proposals to obligate ARPA funds. The IHS provided guidance
and technical assistance to UIOs on submitting proposals and will
continue to work with UIOs to finalize proposals for contract awards.
Question 6. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA)
allows UIOs to utilize their existing contracts to upgrade their aging
facilities and make much-needed facilities upgrades to address gaps
that COVID-19 exacerbated. Has the IHS fully implemented this new
authority? What steps has the Service taken to ensure UIOs can fully
utilize this new authority?
Answer. The IHS has fully implemented this new authority, and UIOs
were informed during the monthly Urban Program Executive Directors/
Chief Executive Officers call. A Dear Urban Indian Organization Leader
letter was issued on April 4, 2022 that provided further information
about the amended law.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Steve Daines to
Elizabeth Fowler
Question 1. Montana tribes are in a housing crisis. At Fort
Belknap, there has not been a new home since the mid-1990s, 12-18
people live in multi-generational two- or three-bedroom housing, and
the housing waitlists are hundreds of families and years-long. It is my
understanding that Montana tribes have had difficulty in using
federally appropriated funds due to a restriction that says HUD and IHS
dollars cannot be spent on the same project. Currently, HUD funds
above-ground construction and IHS funds below-ground water and sewer.
How is IHS working with HUD to overcome this issue?
Answer. When new homes are constructed or existing homes renovated,
necessary sanitation facilities should be part of that development and
funded by the same source providing the funds for the construction or
renovation of the homes. Native American Housing Assistance and Self-
Determination Act (NAHASDA) created the Indian Housing Block Grant
(IHBG) Program, the Title VI Loan Guarantee Program, as well as some
programs for Native Hawaiians. The IHBG program enables federally
recognized Tribes and tribally-designated housing entities (TDHE), as
well as a limited number of state recognized tribes with formula block
grant funds for a variety of affordable housing activities, including
acquisition, new construction, reconstruction, or substantial
rehabilitation, and related housing services, such as energy audits and
housing management services. Title VI provides Federal guarantees on
private market loans to develop affordable housing for federally
recognized Tribes and TDHEs. It is IHS' understanding that the
guarantees may be used on loans for constructing new housing,
rehabilitating housing, building infrastructure, constructing community
facilities, acquiring land for housing and similar purposes. The
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is responsible for
ensuring Tribes and TDHEs are aware that when developing or renovating
housing, that IHBG or Title VI funds should be used to construct or
improve needed sanitation facilities.
Prior to 1982, IHS did provide funding for sanitation facilities
for newly-constructed HUD homes. After that time, Congress began to
appropriate these funds to HUD's Indian housing program, and IHS was
statutorily precluded from funding this type of facility. Since 1982,
Congress has repeatedly expressed this intent in appropriation bill and
report language. As stated in prior year appropriations and again in
the FY 2022 Consolidated Appropriations Act: ``None of the funds
appropriated to the Indian Health Service may be used for sanitation
facilities construction for new homes funded with grants by the housing
programs of the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development.'' Prior to the implementation of NAHASDA in 1996, tribal
housing authorities would transfer the HUD funds identified for
sanitation infrastructure to the IHS and IHS would use those funds to
construct sanitation facilities to support the new HUD homes. However,
since 1996, this transfer of funds to IHS stopped.
Any changes to the appropriation language that would allow IHS to
use Sanitation Facilities Construction (SFC) appropriated funds to
support new HUD homes will reduce SFC funds available to address the
purpose of P.L. 86-121.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Brian Schatz to
Adam Geisler
Question 1. At the hearing, I inquired about the status of the
Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL) August 31, 2021, Tribal
broadband connectivity program application and expressed my concern
that the National Telecommunications and Information Administration
(NTIA) still had not issued these funds to DHHL--despite clear
Congressional intent regarding the three percent DHHL set-aside. My
question remains unanswered. Why has NTIA not yet issued the
statutorily mandated set-aside funding reserved for DHHL?
Answer. NTIA acknowledges that DHHL, as the eligible entity on
behalf of Native Hawaiians, has a statutory allocation of not less than
3 percent of the funds appropriated to the TBCP program to made
available to the DHHL upon completion of a successful application which
meets the requirements outlined in the both the NOFO and Department of
Commerce Grant Guidance. The opportunity to cure an application can
occur at any stage of review (initial review, merit review, or
programmatic review). When applications are submitted that are
incomplete or otherwise deficient, NTIA will work with the applicant to
cure the application based upon the phase of review for which the need
for further curing was identified. This process can be quick or time-
consuming, depending on the extent of the problems and the applicant's
willingness and ability to address them. NTIA is continuing to work
with applicants, including DHHL, to resolve outstanding deficiencies
that need further curing.
Question 1a. How can NTIA, DHHL, and my office work together to
ensure the same issues won't happen when it comes to issuing
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) funds to DHHL?
Answer. NTIA is committed to providing technical assistance to
applicants. NTIA is focused on working with the applicant and its team
to provide technical assistance during future funding opportunity
announcements. I believe this will resolve the issues experienced with
the prior application. We welcome the opportunity to continue to engage
with your office as this technical assistance is offered.
Question 2. Your written testimony states that over 450 Tribal
governments applied for the Tribal broadband connectivity program
grants. Please clarify--does this number represent the total number of
applications from Tribal governments NTIA received for the first
tranche of the program funding (i.e., the funding provided by the
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021)?
Answer. NTIA received 253 applications directly from Tribal
governments in response to the Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO)
issued for the funding provided by the Consolidated Appropriations Act
of 2021. The number represented during the hearing addressed both
individual tribal government applicants and those identified in
consortium applications.
Question 2a. How many total applications did the NTIA receive from
all eligible applicants? Please provide the total number of
applications and disaggregate your response to show the number of
applications by eligibility category.
Answer. NTIA received 299 applications from eligible applicants to
the TBCP program: 253 directly from Tribal Governments, 27 from Tribal
Organizations, 15 from Alaskan Native Corporations, 3 from Tribal
Colleges, and one from a State Government. Through these 299
applications, which include both individual tribal government as well
as consortium applications, 450 Tribal governments are represented by
the 299 applications for TBCP grants.
Question 2b. Of those qualifying applications submitted, how many
applications was the NTIA able to fund?
Answer. Because NTIA is still evaluating applications, engaged in
the curing process, and addressing duplication, we are unable to give a
final number regarding applicants receiving awards at this time.
Question 2c. How many applications for grant funding were initially
denied due to deficiencies in the entity's application materials?
Answer. NTIA had two applicants that were found to be ineligible
during the initial review of Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program
(TBCP) applications and thus denied from further consideration.
Question 2d. If an application was denied, how was that information
communicated to the applicant? What were the typical defects?
Answer. NTIA has only removed from consideration two applicants
from consideration based upon their failure to meet the eligibility
requirements. No applicants have received formal denial of their
application as the Department of Commerce grant guidance requires all
awards to be made prior to notification to unsuccessful or ineligible
applicants. Four applicants provided confirmation to NTIA that they
were withdrawing their applications during programmatic review.
Applications have various deficiencies that result in denial. Denial to
the TBCP program may include but is not limited to failure to be
responsive during curing, or failure to meet program priorities
outlined in the NOFO during the initial, merit, and or programmatic
review phase.
Question 2e. Of the applications denied after their first
submission, how many were subsequently cured?
Answer. NTIA is still reviewing applications. No applicants have
been notified of denial at this time. NTIA is currently working with
applicants to cure applications that required curing. Applicants will
have an opportunity to compete under a second NOFO which will be
released this fall.
Question 2f. Please describe the technical assistance NTIA provided
to applicants who received a notice of denial.
Answer. No applicants have been notified of denial at this time.
Question 3. You testified that NTIA has disbursed approximately $83
million of the funding provided for the Tribal broadband connectivity
program under the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021. You also
testified that NTIA expects the remaining round-one distributions to be
completed by late spring. Can Congress expect the remaining 92 percent
of funds to be distributed in the next few weeks? If not, what is the
timeline for awarding these remaining funds?
Answer. The grant announcement timeline has been adjusted given
additional amendments to program funding under IIJA; Build America, Buy
America provisions and waiver considerations requiring OMB approvals;
statutorily required curing; and the need for further consultation with
Tribes regarding how best to treat the additional funding appropriated
under IIJA in an equitable manner. As of September 22, 2022, NTIA has
now made a total of 70 awards totaling $755,737,402.24 from the initial
round of funding under the June 3 TBCP Notice of Funding Opportunity
(NOFO). NTIA will continue to announce additional awards on a rolling
basis as they move through NTIA's review process.
Question 4. Where in the process is NTIA with respect to
distributing Tribal broadband connectivity program funds provided under
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA)? And, what is the
timeline for completing the application and award phases for these
funds?
Answer. Given the volume of requests submitted in response to the
June 2021 TBCP NOFO and the significant need to quickly expand high-
speed Internet service on Tribal lands, NTIA announced on August 9,
2022, that it had added $1 billion from the IIJA to the current TBCP
funding period, which closed September 1, 2022, increasing the total
available for high-speed Internet grants as part of that notice to
$1.96 billion. In a letter, NTIA has alerted Tribal entities who
applied in June 2021 that there is no action required on their part and
NTIA will continue to announce additional awards on a rolling basis as
they move through NTIA's review process. The additional IIJA funding
added to the TBCP round one will ensure a portion of the IIJA funding
reaches eligible applicants faster and reduces the burden on applicants
to apply in a second NOFO but does, however, increase the amount of
time to conduct application review and curing as well as when we are
permitted to notify unsuccessful applicants.
An additional NOFO will be released this fall to solicit
applications for the remaining IIJA TBCP funding. For Tribes who did
not participate in the Round One NOFO, this will offer them an
additional opportunity to apply for funding. NTIA held Tribal
consultations on September 12, 14, and 16, 2022, to hear from Tribes
directly prior to releasing the next funding opportunity.
Question 5. The Committee has heard reports that the NTIA plans to
use the Federal Communication Commission's broadband maps as part of
the distribution formula for the IIJA Tribal broadband connectivity
program funds. However, these broadband maps are not accurate for
Native communities. \1\ If NTIA indeed plans to use these maps, how
does it plan to address the discrepancies in these maps to ensure the
distribution formula is fair for all Native communities?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See, e.g., U.S. Gov't Accountability Off., GAO-18-630,
Broadband Internet: FCC's Data Overstate Access on Tribal Lands (2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answer. The current NOFO has, and any future NOFO will have, a
process for Tribal Government applicants to self-certify that they are
unserved irrespective of FCC Form 477 data.
Question 6. You testified that the NTIA is considering allocating
some of the IIJA Tribal broadband connectivity funding to qualifying
projects that NTIA was unable to fund using Consolidated Appropriations
Act of 2021 funds. Has NTIA made this decision?
Answer. Yes. On August 9, 2022, NTIA announced that it had added $1
billion from the IIJA to the current TBCP round one NOFO funding
period, which closed on September 1, 2022.
Question 6a. If so, please provide the basis for this decision.
What allocation method was/will be used? Did NTIA consult with Tribes
on an allocation method?
Answer. NTIA consulted with Tribal Nations specifically on this
issue on January 14 and March 18, 2022. Additional IIJA funding added
to the TBCP round one NOFO will be based on awarding those applicants
meeting the program priorities of the NOFO and the final outcome of the
curing process. The balance of funds available through IIJA will be
made available in a second TBCP NOFO.
Question 6b. If not, please provide an update on when NTIA expects
to make this decision and whether it will hold additional Tribal
consultations.
Answer. N/A
Question 7. Has NTIA arrived at an allocation method for
distribution of the Tribal broadband connectivity program funds
provided under the IIJA? If so, please explain.
Answer. NTIA has decided in part, to add additional funding from
the IIJA to the TBCP round one NOFO as described above. We have yet to
publish a NOFO setting out an allocation methodology for the TBCP NOFO
number two, This methodology will be informed by the NTIA Tribal
Consultations that we held on September 12, 14, and 16.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Steve Daines to
Adam Geisler
Question 1. What is the status of tribal consultation to implement
the Digital Equity and Middle-Mile programs?
Answer. On March 18, 2022, NTIA hosted a Tribal consultation with
Tribal Nations prior to the May 13, 2022, release of the NOFOs for the
Digital Equity Act Programs and the Middle Mile Grant Program. We will
be holding two additional consultations in October 2022.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Ben Ray Lujan to
Adam Geisler
Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program
Congress expanded the Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program in the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to address some of the unique barriers to
broadband buildout on Tribal lands by providing an additional $2
billion to the program.
Question 1. Mr. Geisler, the NTIA has awarded only 15 grants and
$6.4 million dollars out of the $3 billion dollars Congress
appropriated for Tribal broadband. When will we start to see a
substantial number of awards and funding get out the door?
Answer. As of September 22, 2022, NTIA had made a total of 70
awards totaling $755,737,402.24 from the initial round of funding under
the June 3 TBCP Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO).
Given the volume of requests submitted in response to the June 2021
TBCP NOFO and the significant need to quickly expand high-speed
Internet service on Tribal lands, NTIA announced on August 9, 2022,
that it had added $1 billion from the IIJA to the current TBCP funding
period, which closed September 1, 2022, increasing the total available
for high-speed Internet grants as part of that notice to $1.96 billion.
In a letter, NTIA has alerted Tribal entities who applied in June 2021
that there is no action required on their part and NTIA will continue
to announce additional awards on a rolling basis as they move through
NTIA's review process. The additional IIJA funding added to the TBCP
round one will ensure a portion of the IIJA funding reaches eligible
applicants faster and reduces the burden on applicants to apply in a
second NOFO but does, however, increase the amount of time to conduct
application review and curing as well as when we are permitted to
notify unsuccessful applicants.
The NTIA received roughly 300 applications for the initial $980
million dollar program that collectively represented over $5.5 billion
in need. NTIA states that it will announce additional grants on a
rolling basis, but without knowledge of whether it plans to open the
second round of funding to additional applicants, many Tribes are left
wondering whether they will be able to benefit from this vital resource
for broadband deployment.
Question 2. Mr. Geisler, yes or no, does NTIA intend to open the
second round of Tribal Connectivity Program funding to additional
applicants beyond the initial 300?
Answer. Yes.
Right now, funds only support 25 megabits per second down and 3 up
for Tribes, which is an outdated standard that does not match existing
needs for 100 up/20 down for all other broadband programs. Question 3:
Mr. Geisler, do you believe 25 megabits per second down and 3 up is
sufficient for Tribal broadband? Response #3: The TBCP program promotes
speeds higher than 25/3 as identified in the merit scoring criteria.
Per the enabling legislation, Congress set the minimum speed to be
considered served at 25/3. NTIA has and will continue to promote the
greatest speeds capable given the nature of the available funding,
backhaul, and terrain of the applicant's proposed service area on
Tribal land.
Question 4. Mr. Geisler, yes or no, does NTIA plan to update this
requirement so that broadband infrastructure on Tribal lands and for
Tribal entities is held to the same standard of 100 up/20 down?
Answer. NTIA lacks the authority to update the requirement. NTIA is
held to the language in the enabling legislation identifying those with
access to 25/3 as ``served'' under the program rules. However, NTIA
would welcome a friendly amendment to the TBCP legislation promoting
faster speeds for eligible TBCP applicants.
______
U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS--ROUNDTABLE
DISCUSSION ON CONCRETE SOLUTIONS: BUILDING A SUCCESSFUL FOUNDATION FOR
NATIVE COMMUNITIES' INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT--WEDNESDAY, JUNE 23, 2021
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:34 p.m. in room 628,
Dirksen Senate Building, Hon. Brian Schatz, Chairman of the Committee,
presiding.
Present: Senators Schatz, Murkowski, Cortez Masto.
The Chairman. Good afternoon. Welcome to today's roundtable. I want
to thank everybody for participating and logging on.
Today we are going to hear about opportunities for and existing
challenges to successful deployment of infrastructure in Native
communities. This will be an important discussion, particularly in
light of the historic levels of Federal funding directly targeting
Indian Country and the Native Hawaiian community through the COVID-19
relief and recovery legislation passed last year.
I will kick things off with questions in a minute. First, I want to
go over some housekeeping matters. For panelists participating
remotely, members will be able to see you on WebEx and call on you
accordingly. I will ask those panelists to remain on mute until they
are recognized.
But this is a roundtable and not a hearing. Although you are all
participating from across the United States, please feel free to jump
in at any time, even if the question is not directed to you. Just be
sure to raise you hand so we can recognize you and make sure you are on
the monitor for everyone to see.
Please also identify yourself as you start to speak, so that our
court reporter accurately picks up who is speaking.
Now for introductions. It gives me real pleasure, and I know
Senators say this all the time, it gives me real pleasure to introduce
someone, but it really does give me tremendous pleasure to introduce
one of my oldest and dearest friends in politics, William Aila, the
Chairman of the Department of Hawaiian Homelands in my home State of
Hawaii. Mr. Aila is joined by his deputy, Tyler Gomes. Aloha and
welcome to you both.
I will now turn it over to Senator Cortez Masto to introduce one of
the panelists.
Senator Cortez Masto. Chairman, thank you so much. And it gives me
great pleasure to be able to introduce this panelist, who is Chairwoman
Janet Davis of the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe. The chairwoman brings
important perspective to today's roundtable, having previously served
as both a 21st century after school coordinator and on the Pyramid Lake
High School Board, as well as on the Committee for the Indian Health
Services. These experiences have helped her as she has taken over the
role of chairwoman in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic.
I believe she will give us an insight into the needs of tribal
communities as it relates to infrastructure. I am so pleased she is
able to join us and I look forward to engaging her and all the
panelists on issues such as tribal road safety, broadband access, and
energy infrastructure as well. Welcome.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cortez Masto.
I will introduce the rests of the panelists. We have Ms. Carol
Gore, President and CEO of the Cook Inlet Housing Authority in
Anchorage, Alaska. We have Mr. Anthony Morgan Rodman, Executive
Director of the White House Council on Native American Affairs in
Washington, D.C. Mr. Jason Freihage, Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Management for Indian Affairs, the Department of Interior. The
Honorable Janet Davis, Chairwoman, Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe--oh, I am
sorry, Senator Cortez Masto just handled that one. The Honorable David
Flute, Secretary, South Dakota Department of Tribal Relations. Mr.
Anthony Walters, Executive Director, National American Indian Housing
Council, not a stranger to this Committee. And Mr. Godfrey Enjady,
President, National Tribal Telecommunications Association in Chandler,
Arizona.
Welcome to you all. Thank you for participating.
Native communities' critical infrastructure needs such as roads,
sanitation, electricity, and housing have been well documented yet
underfunded for decades. We made a dent in that with the CARES Act, but
more importantly with the American Rescue Plan, which represented the
biggest investment in Native communities in American history.
But it is a shame that it took a global pandemic for us to
recognize how these unmet needs put Native communities behind the eight
ball when it comes to health care and economic recovery.
As Congress acted to address both, it became clear that Federal
investment in building new and updating existing infrastructure in
Native communities was no longer nice to have but actually essential.
For example, no matter how much money Congress dedicates to increasing
access to broadband across Native lands, if the relevant Federal
agencies are not coordinating or if a right-of-way hasn't been secured,
then the work becomes delayed, or worse, it simply won't get done. And
that cannot happen.
I look forward to hearing from all the panelists, but I am
especially interested in hearing from our panelists representing the
Administration about how it is prepared to address deployment
challenges and support infrastructure spending by tribes and the
Department of Hawaiian Homelands.
So let's get the questions going. Senator Murkowski is enroute from
Senator Warner's funeral, and also dropping by the infrastructure talks
with the White House. So she is certainly doing good work this
afternoon on the same topic. She expects to be here shortly.
Let me start with William Aila, the Chairman of the Department of
Hawaiian Homelands. Secretary Haaland recently announced the transfer
of 80 acres of surplus Federal property in Ewa Beach for inclusion in
the Hawaiian Homelands trust. Since the former NOAA Pacific Tsunami
Warning Center was located on this land, there is some infrastructure
in place for DHHL to build out. There are residential areas nearby.
What are some of the challenges that DHHL has to overcome in order
to develop the infrastructure needed to facilitate Native Hawaiian
families returning to Hawaiian homelands? What kind of support will the
DHHL need from Congress and the Administration going forward?
Mr. Aila. Good morning, Senator Schatz, and aloha to Senator
Murkowski who is on her way. The relationship between Hawaii and Alaska
is longstanding and super important.
I wanted to make you feel a little bit homesick this morning,
because the south shore has a really nice swell in your favorite spot.
There is no wind and the swells are glassy. So I want you to think
about surfing at home for a while, while you are doing all of this hard
work.
The Chairman. Mr. Chairman, you are killing me.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Aila. If you permit me, before I answer your question regarding
the NOAA property, I would like just to have a minute to talk about
context. Within the constraint of today's title discussion, which is
the concrete solutions, building a successful foundation for Native
communities, a successful foundation, I would like to expand the
understanding. This is coming from a Native perspective.
I know that there is a hesitancy to expand any definition of
infrastructure currently on the Hill right now. So just bear with me.
The purpose of physical infrastructure is a means by which we
desire an end. The end is to achieve improvements in the infrastructure
of the humanity which is Native families and Native communities. Also,
non-Native families and non-Native communities because it is really
about families, how do we get families in a situation, especially
coming out of this pandemic, to be healthy and to be safe and to
prosper?
I am going to ask for your indulgence and start with a personal
reference to my family who has been on homestead land for more than 25
years. Members of the Committee and our fellow panel members, this
program has meant to me and my family that we have been able to live in
a safe and healthy environment assisted by FHA loans, which were not
always available to homestead lands. But the FHA loan guarantee and the
FHA loan that allowed us to build our home is something that provides
security, it provides safety, it provided my family an opportunity to
lead a measured life where we were able to save money and to apply it
to our children's education.
What does that mean, the infrastructure of humanity? The ability
for one of my sons to go to college and now he is working for an ali'i
trust who has responsibility for providing opportunities for orphan and
indigent Native Hawaiian children to prevent them from going down the
wrong path. That is what the infrastructure, when we think about it,
the infrastructure that is so important and the help from Congress is
so important results in.
So I believe it is in perfect alignment with President Biden's
desire to get folks to understand what is infrastructure really all
about. It is more than just concrete and it is more than just roads and
it is more than just buildings. But in Hawaii we have 20 thousand plus
Native Hawaiians who are on the wait list. So infrastructure is
critical and infrastructure is important.
This property over in Ewa Beach represents an opportunity because
the base infrastructure is right at the end of the property. It is a
matter of improving the infrastructure and the vertical on this
property. Now, there are some challenges, because of climate change,
which you don't normally associate with infrastructure needs. But the
ability to mitigate sea level rise on this particular property is a
classic opportunity for NAHASDA to be explored and to be expanded in
terms of flexibility on how we use funds for climate change mitigation.
So that is one opportunity.
The infrastructure costs here in Hawaii of course are very, very
expensive, because we have to bring everything in from overseas. The
time delay, the shipment, I am sure all of my fellow panelists can
understand and respond to that.
For Native Hawaiians, the reauthorization of NAHASDA is critical. I
cannot help but repeat that again; it is critical. A return to
appropriation levels of the past somewhere in $15 million to $20
million is something that is also critical if we are going to expand
the ability for the Department to increase opportunities for those
20,000 beneficiaries who are on our wait list.
The ability of DHHL to work with HUD, here is an example of
flexibility in our housing plan has allowed us to provide critical
assistance during the pandemic. During the pandemic, I just would like
to toot the horn of our staff, because they really came through. So
there is a quick timeframe of pandemic really started in the month of,
or began to be understood in the month of March in 2020. On March 24th,
2020, the Hawaiian Homes Commission conducted an emergency meeting and
approved the postponement of mortgage loan payments for all of our
direct loans for a period of six months, effective April 20th. Three
weeks later, because of HUD's flexibility and their ability to work
with us, we were able to get approval from the commission to deploy up
to $2 million for rental assistance. This was pre any other assistance
kicking in.
So I just want to acknowledge my staff for the quick reaction and
the benefits of using NAHASDA, because we had a flexible housing plan
and we had support from HUD. That is a clear example of how NAHASDA has
been very, very helpful in dealing with the pandemic and hopefully
suggestions coming forward and possibly being adopted can help us
really improve the after the pandemic.
All of the funding that the Congress has approved for pandemic
rental assistance and utility assistance has been critical in terms of
holding the social fabric of our Native community here in Hawaii, as
well as the broader community here in Hawaii. So here is an example of
where government has actually worked and has actually prevented further
damage.
There are other Federal sources of funding that I would like to
highlight, Senator Schatz because you mentioned it in your opening
remarks. The USDA Water Environmental Program is another source of
funding that I know that Native Hawaiians can receive assistance from.
However, the prohibition on use of this money for exploratory wells is
something that if fixed, will have huge impacts on the ability of the
Department of Hawaiian Homelands to develop, to provide. Most of our
lands, most of the 200,000 acres of lands are on islands that are
spread out, in very remote areas. So the drawback to developing those
areas, of course, is having access to water, is having access to
funding for roads, infrastructure, loans. I appreciate your patience;
we will send you additional information in terms of other Federal
programs that can be used to assist both Native Hawaiians as well as I
think other Native American groups.
I just want to thank you for the opportunity to allow me to provide
at least a Native Hawaiian view of infrastructure and what it means to
our families and what it means to generations after generations of our
families. I would point out that in Hawaii we have many
multigenerational families that are living together. This morning, at
2:00 a.m. I was gifted with my fourth grandson, who is going to grow up
on homestead land and going to be a productive member of society.
With that, thank you for the time to expand and provide the
testimony of how critical NAHASDA and other Federal programs are to
Native peoples.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Aila. As we say in Pauoa, mazel tov.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Senator Cortez Masto.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, a great start to the conversation already. I am sure
similar issues we could hear from the other panel members as well.
Let me start with Chairwoman Davis. Thank you again for being here.
If you would, please talk a little bit about, as a western State,
obviously, let's bring it back to the desert, and talk a little bit
about, we have seen the impacts of climate change, severe drought,
wildfires. How is this threatening and/or impacting both the community
needs that you have, your infrastructure needs, as well as your
cultural resources? I am curious if you can address that as we talk
about infrastructure needs in general.
And please put in perspective for members to understand, Pyramid
Lake Paiute Tribe was one of the first in the State of Nevada really to
partner with a non-profit. It was Blackrock Solar, to bring solar
projects into the State of Nevada. So if you would, Chairwoman, please
talk a little bit about the challenges that you are facing with respect
to infrastructure needs, and some of the positive stuff that you have
done already.
Ms. Davis. Good afternoon, and thank you for the introduction,
Senator. I am grateful to be here this afternoon. It is afternoon for
you, but for me it is still morning.
We live in a desert area, Nevada is desert. We have the need for
infrastructure for water. And we are looking at the new funding
available. It is not very much funding when you look at all of the
infrastructure needs that we need for water. We have had this
discussion; we need to do wells. We have old pipes in the ground. There
is definite need, as was discussed here earlier, for the housing as
well. In order for us to provide more housing for our tribal members,
we have to have the infrastructure. We don't have the ability or the
funding available to do the wells and to do all of that.
We are looking at possible ventures into solar energy. We are
working on that avenue to provide some extra funding for our
communities to use to help with the infrastructure needs. Definitely,
we have the ability to do these contracts with the solar companies, but
having to wait and I guess maybe those questions will come later as far
as the road rights-of-ways and easements that we have to wait to go
through the Bureau. We are in the process of getting our HEARTH Act
approved through the Bureau as well, through the Secretary of Interior.
It hasn't quite gone through yet.
So any time that we are trying to get into agreements with anyone
to provide us the ability to look into economic development to provide
for the infrastructure, to supply the tribe with those needs, we are at
the mercy of waiting for the Secretary of Interior to approve these
agreements up to six months. A lot of times when we do business with
companies, it takes a long time to get the approval. As you know,
companies want to move right now. They don't have the patience to wait
later on down the road.
Definitely, we do have a lot of infrastructure needs here as far as
to build more housing, to provide even fresh well water. Just like
anywhere else, from what I am seeing on the news, we have old, old
pipes in the ground that even if we did build new wells, we still have
the old pipes still in the ground that need to be changed out. We don't
have the capability or the funding to provide that need for our
communities.
So there is a need for more funding out there for us to build the
infrastructure. And definitely the ARP and some of the CARES Act has
helped us begin that. But then again, you have to put your priorities
in place. That is not a lot of money to take care of all of our needs
in our communities. I can speak for my community alone, but I know
other tribal communities have that same need as we do.
Right now, it is like putting band-aids on different areas to make
do. It shouldn't be like that. If we provide the ways and means for our
tribes to be able to do the economic development, to put those things
in place, to make it easier for us to do economic development, that
would be helpful. Part of it is changing some of these previous
measures that have been into an act, to renew that act that you guys
haven't looked at in a very long time, to make it more easy for us to
maneuver through the economic development, to do the rights-of-way, to
do the easement, to enable us to help ourselves out. That is what I am
thinking.
Senator Cortez Masto. Chairwoman, thank you.
Mr. Chairman, if I can just do one follow-up question. Chairwoman,
can you also address the challenges utilizing Federal programs, and
going after Federal grants, like those at the USDA Rural Development?
Are there challenges that you face even applying for those programs, or
those grant funds?
Ms. Davis. Yes, I would say there is. They are helpful, but they
can be very complicated. For example, we have a commitment to do a
partnership with the solar company. But we don't have access to the tax
credits that are offered. We don't have access to those. The companies
get them, when we partner with them, the company will get them. We
wouldn't as a tribe.
So say for that solar company, for us to do the same venture, for
us to build our own community solar or microgrid, we would have to pay
the full price to be that partner, or to outright buy that, for
example. Whereas you are offering tax credits to companies but they get
the tax credits, the tribes don't get the tax credits.
So that is not helpful. That is a challenge.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cortez Masto.
Mr. Enjady, as you know, the American Rescue Plan included a
historic investment of nearly a billion dollars to expand broadband
access in Native communities. What other needs should Congress take
into account when it comes to increasing broadband access? I am
particularly interested in this question of right-of-way. But also more
generally, it is easy to, it is not easy, but it is only one step to
appropriate the dollars if there is a labyrinth of permits that have to
be navigated, and rights-of-way that have to be secured.
That may not be within a tribal government's capacity to get it
done, and a billion dollars sounds like a lot, but not across hundreds
of nations. I am wondering if you could comment on that.
Mr. Enjady. Thank you, Chairman Schatz. I really appreciate the
opportunity to speak before the Committee. I also want to thank Vice
Chair Senator Murkowski for allowing me to speak today.
It is a vast arena that has been developed by funding that is made
available for tribes. A lot of tribes are really going out right now to
be able to understand how to provide the funding to build better
broadband across Indian Country. These are some of the things that
Indian Country has needed for quite a long time. The pandemic really
brought it out, especially for needs for children and schools.
Providing communications for tribal nations across the Nation is one of
the key things that we should be providing.
Universal service should be across the whole land. That is some of
the things that should be provided by a bunch of this funding that is
happening right now.
In order to be able to apply this funding, tribes need to educate
themselves on how to provide that kind of broadband. Looking at
ourselves, there are not very many tribal nations that have telephone
companies or broadband companies. If you look at it, NTIA is comprised
of ten tribally owned telephone companies throughout the Nation. We are
the professionals in how we do our business.
But we want to give and share that experience with all tribal
nations to be able to go through this, to be able to go through all of
the pitfalls that we have gone through, we want to be able to educate
and help tribes go through all the roadblocks that are there,
especially with rights-of-way. If we can control a lot of that
ourselves, we can be able to provide the funding and be able to go and
place cables and underground fiber where they need to be, set up towers
that we need to do.
I think we are more sovereign than we think we are sometimes to be
able to do this. These are some of the things that we need to be able
to provide. Education is a key point. If we look at people in industry,
I have a good friend, Jose Montanani, who has been working in the
industry since a very young age, placing fiber for the Gila River
Tribe, being a general manager for Fort Mojave Indian tribes. All these
kinds of professionals, there are not a lot of us out there. I myself
came from the industry at a very young age and have been in the
industry for about 35 years. As you can see, I am getting old. Now we
need some of the new younger folks to come up and start being a part of
this group of professionals that provides services to Indian tribes. We
need better education to do this.
Rights-of-way is a big issue. The realty part of this is
cumbersome, hard to get through with the BIA. But I am sure Secretary
Haaland is going to change a lot of that. Hopefully, we can get through
a lot of this to be able to get the rights-of-way that we need to get
through Indian Country and build out the infrastructure that we need.
The other thing that we need to look at is sustainability. There is
a lot of funding coming to the tribes but are tribes able to provide
that service, operational expenses that happen after we build these
networks? Who is going to take care of these networks? Are tribes able
to do that? Hopefully, we can do that through looking at some of the
acts. The Bridging Tribal Digital Divide is another one that could be
used to provide that sustainable funding as we keep moving forward.
Contribution reforms at the USF is another one that could be used to
help tribes to build out these new networks that are out there.
Also as someone had mentioned earlier about applying for a lot of
these funds, RUS has been a good friend to Indian Country, especially
when it comes to providing funding. We go after loans and we pay back
the government as we have always done. I have gone through three loans
right now, I have already paid off one, I am halfway through another
one and am applying for another loan to be able to provide services in
this area. Hopefully, I will be able to at least try to get some of the
funding under these NTIA grants that are available now.
So as we keep moving forward, there is a lot that has to be done,
especially infrastructure. That is just one of the foundations that
needs to be laid. As you have heard, housing, water lines, sewer lines,
all these other ones, roads need critical repair, and need funding to
be able to do this.
It is a great start that we are going through this whole thing so
Indian Country is recognized in these areas.
The Chairman. Thank you very much for those thoughtful comments.
Assistant Secretary Freihage, I have five questions for you. I am
going to give them to you relatively quickly, and hopefully you can get
back to me relatively quickly. They are calling votes soon.
The first is this question of environmental review on some of these
projects, and whether or not there is work we can do to help tribal
governments to expedite.
The second is on the question of rights-of-way and whether or not
there could be a point person in the Federal Government to help a tribe
to navigate the labyrinth, BLM, BIA, who knows, Park Service, DOT. But
it seems to me that if you are not in the real estate business, even if
you are, it is hard. But certainly if you are not then this stuff gets
really, really challenging. You need a friend in the government to help
you to figure it all out.
Number three is, my understanding is that GAO tried to do a needs
assessment of broadband in tribal communities, and they basically
couldn't come up with a number. I am wondering whether there is another
way to get at this. This is a problem on tribal land and not on tribal
land of trying to determine who does have connectivity and who doesn't.
But certainly, without knowing the total need it is hard to appropriate
a dollar amount, or authorize a dollar amount.
Number four, I just want us to all keep an open mind about the
possibility that for some communities, satellite or other non-hardline
infrastructure ends up being the better solution to get you that
internet connectivity. The point is to get internet connectivity, the
point is not to have a buried cable going to your home. If that is the
best way to do it, that is fine. I have no objection to it. I have been
a supporter of that all my life.
But I also think that in certain particular instances, it may end
up being cheaper and quicker to look at other technologies. I think
even if we don't land there, it is important for the broadband folks to
feel a little bit of the heat of some free market competition among the
various ways to provide connectivity for homes.
Then the final thing, to Chairman Aila's question about the
permissibility of using some NAHASDA funds, and other Federal funds,
for resilience. In my experience of working on climate, if we talk
about resilience, if we talk about severe weather, we can get good
bipartisan support. Sometimes when you talk about climate, it tends to
polarize. But I do think mitigating against natural disasters is
something that we all have an interest in.
So, go for it. You have three minutes.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. I am just kidding. Go ahead.
Mr. Freihage. I will try and make it as quick as possible. I am
probably going to lump the first two together, a little bit about the
environmental assessments and rights-of-way. The idea of having a
central point certainly has merit. We can look into that. We have been,
in Indian Affairs, BIA has been focusing on some improvements there.
Recently we put out a new policy memorandum that streamlines the
process for broadband rights-of-way, for example. We hope that will
help get the approval process under 60 days, which is currently kind of
the regulatory time frame once we have a complete package from the
requester.
So I think using that as an example, putting more transparency in
the status of requests, the module that they added to the TAM system
for processing a lot of these requests helps on the tribal side, for
folks to understand where the package is so they can come back and hey,
what is going on, have more accountability there. I think that has been
helpful, too. We are continuing to look at some other improvements on
that. Again, we will follow up to work with folks about a central point
of contact.
Regarding a broader assessment of broadband or infrastructure in
general, internally we have taken some looks at merging where are
tribal lands and taking overlays of information on broadband
accessibility. Obviously, it is at a high level. It doesn't get into
solving all these local solutions.
But we have done some higher-level initial assessments. I think to
do the next step would be a bigger effort, a little more costly. I
think it certainly could be done. I think it is critical to engage,
though, with tribal leaders on their goals for broadband deployment in
their communities for how we approach that, and how we would do the
assessments.
So I think those are some factors we would take into account into
doing such an assessment on broadband.
Regarding satellite, we actually are looking into using satellite
right now. One of the areas to try and problem solve when we are
building out distance learning for BIE schools, one of the lessons we
learned is okay, we are almost at the point, we are down to only two
schools left that don't have the minimum level of broadband speed.
So if the schools were okay, the question then is how do you get
the accessibility to the families. In some cases we were giving them
the little wi-fi hot spots for people that actually have a cell signal
nearby. But then there are a lot of folks who don't have that. That is
the tough spot.
So we are actively looking into working a pilot to test out
satellite based broadband connectivity. That is something that in the
coming months we can get back to you on and report progress there.
I think the lesson learned with anything broadband or many of these
infrastructure proposals is, there really is no one size fits all. We
would like to rubber stamp an approach that works everywhere, but it is
often about working for some of these local solutions. We have been
looking into satellite as one approach for some of these areas.
Regarding resilience funding, I am not going to jump into comment
for HUD or NAHASDA. They are specific areas. But clearly, taking into
account factors, natural hazards, climate driven factors, wildland
fires is important. One of the factors proposed in the Jobs Plan is a
billion-dollars proposal for fuels management. Obviously, we want to be
doing what we can to not expose new infrastructure and existing to
increasing and hotter wildland fires.
So I do think that is something that needs to be taken into
account. There are multiple strategies for how to do that as it varies
based on the threat that we are facing.
The Chairman. Very impressive, Secretary.
Chairwoman Davis, you wanted to respond to something someone said,
and then Senator Cortez Masto has an additional question.
Ms. Davis. So in what was said and what was responded to, my
question was, some of the offerings for the broadband as far as the
grants and those things that were offered, there was a lot of
stipulations in those. We applied and we were denied. That was during,
in the middle of the pandemic. We had received the CARES Act funding.
That could have been a priority to help our students. Where we live, we
are rural Nevada. Not all our kids go to our BIE schools. They go to
all different public schools within our area. We probably have about
maybe 200 kids that bus out of here every day. They didn't have access
to the broadband.
If we had known all the stipulations that those applications asked
for, it made it hard for us to apply for those fundings. So basically,
we missed out on using our CARES Act funding for broadband and
anything.
Yes, I agree it would be helpful if we could use some of this grant
funding to do the satellite services and any of that.
Then on another note, as far as the rights-of-way and all of that,
I am sure that you guys will be actually passing an act that will help
as well as the HEARTH Act has helped. I don't understand why when the
HEARTH Act was followed up and passed that it wasn't included, that you
did not include easements and rights-of-way and things that would
provide for us to make those lease agreements easier to maneuver
through. That is just my comment.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
I will move right to Senator Cortez Masto in one moment, but just
to tell you that the benefit of this Zoom thing is that you can have
participants from all over the Country. The downside is that you didn't
get the opportunity to see the Assistant Secretary nodding vigorously
and taking notes about all of your comments.
We will follow up with the Secretary on everything you have said.
Senator Cortez Masto. followed by Chairman Aila. Then please, those
of you who are participants who have not yet participated, we welcome
your participation.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
This question is for Ms. Gore, with the Cook Inlet Housing
Authority. I am curious, one, to hear your thoughts on the conversation
so far, particularly as it pertains to housing. But also, what would
you recommend particularly when it comes to Federal programs that
support development of housing? Which ones should we be thinking about
to prioritize as part of an infrastructure package? I would love your
thoughts on that.
Ms. Gore. Thank you very much for that question.
I think NAHASDA has been an amazing gift to Indian Country. It is
the only Federal funding that is really focused on housing. Prior to
NAHASDA, it was a very competitive program. In our experience, in 25
years, pre-NAHASDA, we built 267 senior affordable rentals. Since
NAHASDA, we have built over 1,600 homes. The power of authority and
being able to address local needs with a block grant that has some
flexibility for tribes to do what needs to be done rather than a
prescriptive grant program that we had experienced previously was just
an amazing gift to Indian Country.
I would say just a couple of things. First, I want to express our
gratitude for elevating tribes and housing in the CARES Act and the
ARPA funding. That was really critical. The rental assistance has been
an amazing gift. We see hundreds of families benefiting from those
funding sources.
At the same time, we are keenly aware of the housing needs pre-
COVID, pre-pandemic. The pandemic simply elevated those things to a
very, very high level.
I would recommend some very simple things, three things. To
recognize housing as infrastructure in whatever infrastructure bill
Congress moves forward. It is critical to our communities.
Second, to help us correct what we see as a historical injustice in
the HUD budget to bring equity to Indian housing. We have seen the HUD
budget grow more than 50 percent, to $56 billion. And in that same 25-
year period, the IHBG, the Indian Housing Block Grant, has seen a 4
percent increase.
To us, that is a serious inequity to Indian Country and something
that would really help to stabilize the IHBG program and help us really
grow and produce more housing.
Finally, just to give a shout-out and a cama-i to Chairman Aila,
reauthorize NAHASDA, please. I think that would help to stabilize our
program and would help us greatly.
Many I would say one more thing. We are ready. We know our needs.
We all have pipelines. We have families who are waiting. All we really
need is more NAHASDA funding to make a difference in our communities.
So I would just encourage and urge the Committee to think about the
same opportunities you have already given. They have been awesome.
But also think about what is ahead of us, and to try to bring some
equity to our funding as it relates to public and Indian housing. There
is an I right in the middle. We should be standing up very tall for
this Committee. We appreciate your attention. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
I am going to give the order of people to speak right now. Mr.
Aila, we would like to hear from Mr. Walters, because we are now deep
into a housing conversation. Then Mr. Enjady as well.
Mr. Aila. Thank you, Chairman Schatz. Real briefly, I would just,
with regard to broadband inequity, like the Committee to consider
perhaps a public-private partnership in terms of expanding programs
like the new market tax credits, where we can incentivize private
companies and utilities to provide the broadband, the expensive
broadband, i.e., fiber, physical infrastructure to our Native
communities. That is another option that we should be taking a look at.
Thank you for the opportunity to make that suggestion.
The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Walters?
Mr. Walters. Thank you, Senator. Thanks to all the members of the
Committee for focusing on housing. I think it is a great sign that
housing is a part of this conversation. I will certainly echo Ms.
Gore's comments there. We are still going by the HUD report from 2017
saying 68,000 units are needed across Indian Country. Everyone can have
an opinion on whether or not that is accurate or whether it is low. I
think most people would say it is a low estimate. But it is hard to say
we are combating infrastructure needs if we are not taking into account
the housing needs for all these tribal communities across the Country.
So we certainly appreciate the focus on housing here.
Certainly, the priority for NAIHC and tribal housing programs is
access to more resources. Certainly, that can take the form of straight
NAHASDA funding. I think as you have seen in the APR and CARES Act and
the omnibus that created the Emergency Rental Assistance Program, the
Homeowner Assistance Fund, if we are not going to put funding straight
to NAHASDA programs, and there was funding there for those as well.
But tribes are there, ready, and able to access these larger
national housing programs and do so in a good way. So if we are going
to dedicate resources to housing outside of Indian Country and not have
kind of an equitable also response for tribal housing, give tribes
access to these programs. It is across the board.
It is not just these new ones. It is USDA Rural Housing programs,
it is encouraging private finance, commercial investors to really
engage tribal communities and develop tribal communities. We have a lot
of tax credit programs that are there to serve underserved communities.
But tribal communities are always the last out of those underserved
communities to really receive that attention from investors.
So if having those general set-asides or incentives aren't working
for tribal communities, I certainly would encourage taking a look at
some of these other programs that are out there, really utilizing
tribal infrastructure.
We have seen in the USDA pilot program, I know a lot of members of
this Committee have been working on this, the re-lending of Federal
loan dollars through Native CDFIs. It is a great way to get Federal
funding to the ground or into the local tribal communities that we just
weren't seeing. These programs have been around for decades and not
really being strongly implemented in tribal communities. But when we
start utilizing the tribal infrastructure, we can see a great result
and turnaround there.
So certainly a lot of opportunities and means to add resources to
tribal housing programs across the Country, and certainly the best
place to start is NAHASDA. Reauthorizing NAHASDA to give these tribal
programs the certainty they need show that it is still a priority of
Congress, and of course it is, through the funding that we have seen
these last two years. But certainly a lot of places that we can still
make improvements.
Senator Murkowski. [Presiding] Thank you. I understood that
President Enjady wanted to jump in here with a comment.
Mr. Enjady. Yes, I do.
Senator Murkowski. Go ahead.
This is in response to Chairwoman Davis' ask about missed
opportunity on the broadband funding underneath the CARES Act for them
to use for schools.
There is a new fund out right now called the Emergency Connectivity
Fund. It is $7.1 billion that is available through the FCC. Acting
Chairwoman Rosenworcel is the one that brought that about. It is
funding for computers, tablets, wi-fi hotspots, broadband services to
students, faculties, and schools and libraries. It is something that is
available right now.
So you should be able to try to get into that and get some funding
for the schools. Hopefully, there is other funding that might be made
available for that.
Also with the rights-of-way issues, I wholeheartedly believe that
is correct, and how we should be able to try to get that within six
months. I am wholeheartedly for that.
The other part about satellites, it is a new industry for the new
types of satellites that are coming out that are over our heads right
now. Something that has always been a problem, though, for it is
lifetime. Lifetime, especially when I will talk to my aunt in Alaska,
there is always that bit of a difference on wondering if they heard me
yet or not. That is still a problem.
But as these satellites get closer to Earth, the signal doesn't
have so far to bounce. So that is something that is getting better. It
is still early on. But it could work for some areas, these real remote
areas, it doesn't make sense to try to run fiber out to. So I
wholeheartedly agree with that. But like I said, it is still new. That
is all I would say. Thank you.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
My apologies to all of our panelists this afternoon. We are talking
infrastructure here, obviously, very key, very important. I have been
in discussions all week, and they have continued through this afternoon
as well, with regard to where we are with infrastructure negotiations
with the White House and colleagues here in the Senate. So my apologies
to you.
But thank you all for your participation and the discussion around
particularly housing as it relates to infrastructure. I had a virtual
roundtable last month with the Association of Alaska Housing
Authorities to discuss Alaska Native housing priorities. Every single
one of those housing authorities raised the issue of housing as
infrastructure.
So I think we recognize these areas of importance, and again, what
more we can do to incentivize financial institutions to invest in our
Native communities.
I want to start with some questions directed to you, to Carol Gore,
my friend from Alaska, but also the President and CEO of Cook Inlet
Housing Authority. When we had the discussion last month in May, there
was a robust discussion, again, about the importance of housing to the
infrastructure within a rural Native village.
I would like to ask you, Carol, in terms of lending mechanisms to
address housing infrastructure, how can we best facilitate, assist, how
can we ensure that from a funding perspective in these remote areas
that are very high cost, that access to materials is limited, what is
our right lending mechanism here?
Ms. Gore. Vice Chairman Murkowski, and my own Senator, it is really
nice to see you. Thanks for the invitation.
It is interesting. I will just start by making a statement that you
already know firsthand, which is, there is no private market in our
rural village communities. So lending mechanisms are really tough.
Between the cost of delivering that housing and finding a way in a
subsistence economy for our people to afford some payment of debt, it
is really challenging. I think there is a balance. First of all, USDA
is one tool that I know was used. There is a BIA HIP [phonetic] program
that we have been very creative in using. Section 184 has been a
significant tool for Cook Inlet Housing, and others are trying that on
as a way to address their workforce housing in their communities. I
think that is critical as we look at housing both that are essential to
our communities like teachers and safety officers and health
professionals.
So there are a myriad of tools. There aren't enough. I would say
many of us like Cook Inlet Housing use low-income housing tax credits.
But they are very challenging to use in a rural situation because there
is a lack of economy.
I think we have a chicken and an egg. We can't have an economy in
rural Alaska without adequate housing.
When I think about the lending mechanisms, and I hope, Senator
Murkowski, you will forgive me for taking a bit of a side path here,
but you have seen firsthand what it means to live in a home with 18
people and two bedrooms and one bath. How can we expect them to have a
good work life and their kids to get a good education if they don't
have adequate housing?
So when I think about lending mechanisms, I think about first of
all how we create that thriving economy for them to be able to afford
some debt. There are some very creative ideas that we are experimenting
with, one that I think Rural Cap tried. It was a tiny home, and with
multi-layers of grant funding, they got down to a payment of $250 a
month.
Those are experiments; they don't work for everyone. But I know
that my peers and I are all working very hard to create those good
examples.
How do we layer them? We brought in foundations who I think are
willing to help us pilot some new ideas. It would be wonderful if the
Federal Government would allow us the flexibility to pilot some new
ideas, invest in us. We know what we are doing. We have the capacity to
build in extreme climates. Let us try some different things on.
But in order to do that, we need some patient funding, we need some
inexpensive funding. Conventional debt today may be roughly 3 or 4
percent. I would give my life for a 1 percent debt and 40 years to pay
it back. That kind of patience is what we need.
I am not sure where to lean into that. But I do think there are
some opportunities for us to give you some more specific feedback post
this conference. If I haven't answered your question, please let me
know.
Senator Murkowski. You have, Carol, and you have given a level of
depth and detail which I really appreciate. You remind me, and there
were some people on this Committee, some of the staff on the Committee,
that had an opportunity to go out to the Committee hearing that we held
out in Savoonga a couple of years ago, and to be in one of the homes,
well, to be in several of the homes to see the conditions of families,
as you mentioned, having 18 people in a couple bedroom home.
I recall going into one home. This was right at the end of the
summer. The house was a little bit disrupted because the children
needed to adjust their sleep schedules because people in the house,
there were so many people living in the house and so few places to
sleep that people literally slept in shifts. The children, because it
was summertime, didn't need to go to be early. But they were trying to
get everybody in a sleep pattern, so that when the kids started school,
I think the following week or so, they would be going to bed before
2:00 a.m.
I remember as I was trying to move around this very crowded home
that one of the individuals who was taking his turn sleeping as part of
his shift, it was the afternoon. It was the local BPSO, the law
enforcement officer. It was just a reality, you bet, when you have
housing that is so overcrowded it doesn't even meet the definition of
housing. It was something that you don't forget. Very impactful.
So as you point out, you have limited ability in these subsistence
economies to pay for housing. You cannot get the professionals, whether
it is the law enforcement, whether it is the teachers, whether it is a
health aide, whether it is a postmaster, because there is simply no
housing.
As we are working through appropriations right now, I know that
some of the initiatives that we are looking at are those that will help
to build out housing for professionals, whether it is in public safety
or education or in health care. So finding some innovative solutions,
working not only within our Federal programs, but also using those
partnerships with different Native organizations and out on the private
sector as well.
I would ask you to just again give more considered thought about
different ways or different mechanisms that we can utilize. I think
your key here is flexibility. We need to have some flexibility. We need
to have programs that recognize not only the cost issues but the access
issues and really how lack of housing limits any level of not only
economic opportunity but just a quality of life, whether it comes to
access to health care or just being able to keep the small post office
open.
I want to turn to Secretary Flute from South Dakota. Just a general
question for you in terms of what you see as the biggest impediment to
developing road infrastructure on tribal lands. Then if you could also
weigh in with the same question that I just asked Carol Gore in terms
of potential opportunities to incentive financial institutions to
invest in infrastructure in Native communities.
Mr. Flute. Thank you, Madam Vice Chairwoman Murkowski, members of
the Senate Committee, for this roundtable.
I think the biggest impediments in tribal roads infrastructure is,
we have to take a look at the decades of how long ago these preexisting
roads were built. The different types of compaction tests that were
acceptable maybe back in the 1940s, the 1950s, are not the same
standard that are acceptable today.
So when our large land-based tribes are looking at repairing their
roads, they may be cutting two feet down and now finding that what
would have cost maybe a million and a half a mile to repair a road is
now costing maybe $2 million or $3 million a mile because they have to
not only dig two feet deep down but now, they have to dig three and
four feet deep to relay that underground and get a good compaction.
There are a few of the other challenges that we see. I heard
somebody talking about the rights-of-way. Some of the BIA roads do not
have rights-of-way established. There are a lot of times that process
can take a while. So finding a way to streamline that, getting those
engineers out there to do what they need to do and the surveying,
getting these rights-of-way established so that the tribes can start
making their roads better.
Senator Murkowski. If I can interrupt on that, how long on average
does it take to complete a road project on tribal trust lands?
Mr. Flute. Thank you for the question, Madam Vice Chairwoman. It
really depends on the road. I know as former chairman for my tribe, one
of our road projects, it was about a 10-year project done in three
phases. Again, it was done in about three miles, in about three years.
That is because of the different compaction tests. If the compaction
tests were good and there were rights-of-way established, I would think
that they could be done in a matter of months.
But again, respectfully to you and the question, it really depends
on the geographical landscape as well, too. We have seen 20, 30 years
ago where there was maybe a slough is now maybe a little lake where the
slough has turned into a marsh or those waterways have now expanded. So
the funding formulas as well, too, I think have a big impact on tribes
and I think that really needs to be visited, depending on the miles a
tribe has and the need. I know with our tribes in South Dakota, we have
thousands of miles of roads.
So thank you for the question.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
Mr. Flute. I am sorry, Madam Vice Chairwoman. On the lending, I
think an incentive would be to possibly consider long-term low interest
loans with a percentage going to the lending institution. I know there
are a lot of challenges there, but I think that would be one solution
to offer on incentivizing the CDFIs. Thank you.
Senator Murkowski. Very good. I appreciate that.
One final question, and this is directed to Mr. Rodman. Just pretty
simply here, how can the White House help us in making sure that the
agencies are thinking about how they are removing barriers to applying
for Federal funding? Basically how do we cut the red tape here that
oftentimes leaves tribes behind?
Mr. Rodman. Vice Chair Murkowski, thank you. And thank you to the
participants. This has been very informative.
The White House Council on Native American Affairs was designed to
coordinate Federal efforts, Federal resources across the Executive
Branch. We have Department of Transportation, we have HUD, we have HHS,
we have EPA, DOI, of course, getting together to look at how to, as you
said, Senator Murkowski, cut through that red tape. Housing is one of
the areas that this interagency body is looking at. The leadership is
committed to getting things done in short order and to really take to
heart conversations like today, and from tribal leaders, and see what
we can make stick for permanent changes, basically. Permanent, positive
changes for simplifying processes, this constant coordination of
resources doesn't happen naturally. So that is what we are working on
to address the housing needs, the infrastructure needs that the panel
is talking about today.
Senator Murkowski, it is really the focus of this interagency
effort to make these Federal programs more efficient and to have more
of an impact.
Senator Murkowski. I hear way too often that it is the siloed world
that we are all operating in, and that just further complicates it. As
an appropriator, it seems to me we are doing a relatively good job in
trying to get dollars out there. But when our programs aren't talking
well with one another and it doesn't get translated out there on the
ground, whether it is in housing infrastructure, what we need to be
doing on Indian roads, these are impediments.
So thank you for the responses. We need to be working together in
that vein.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. [Presiding] Thank you, Vice Chair Murkowski.
I want to echo what Senator Murkowski said, the need for
interagency coordination is one of the top line takeaways here. I hope
that the White House and the Department of Interior and you personally,
Mr. Freihage, can assist us with that.
We will have specific follow-on items. And for all of the
participants, we really appreciated the really constructive
conversation. This was designed not to be a hearing specifically so we
could have a little bit more give and take. A little bit of the benefit
of informality when we talk about the problems that Native communities
are experiencing to have an opportunity to redirect some of those
challenges right to you, Mr. Freihage, and you, Mr. Rodman, was really
beneficial.
But what matters the most in my judgment is what we do next. So let
this be the continuation of an ongoing conversation. I want all of the
participants to feel that our door is open, our email accounts are
open, and that we are anxious to get your guidance on what the American
Jobs Plan should look like, what the American Families Plan should look
like, what the appropriations process should look like, how NAHASDA
should be not just reauthorized by improved, and how we can better
represent Native communities across the Country and better serve Native
communities across the Country.
So I want to thank everybody for participating in an incredibly
constructive roundtable. This concludes our session. Thank you very
much.
[Whereupon, at 3:43 p.m., the roundtable was concluded.]
Attachments
Prepared Statement of Francys Crevier, CEO, National Council of Urban
Indian Health
Thank you to Chairman Brian Schatz and Vice-Chairwoman Lisa
Murkowski and all the Members of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs
for hosting this important roundtable on Infrastructure Development in
Native Communities. The federal government has neglected infrastructure
for health care in urban Indian communities for far too long, to the
detriment of the 70 percent of American Indians and Alaska Natives (AI/
AN) who reside in cities today. We hope you will prioritize the
recommendations provided today as you work to fulfill the government's
trust responsibility to provide health care for all AI/AN people,
regardless of where they live.
The National Council of Urban Indian Health (NCUIH) represents 41
Urban Indian Organizations (UIOs) operating 77 facilities across 22
states. As part of the trust obligation, the federal government funds
UIOs who provide high-quality and culturally competent care to urban
Indian populations. UIOs are a critical part of the Indian Health
Service (IHS) system, which includes IHS facilities, Tribal Programs,
and UIOs. This is commonly referred to as the I/T/U system.
Unfortunately, UIOs experience significant parity issues as compared to
the other components of the I/T/U system as well as other federally
funded healthcare systems, which greatly impact their services and
operations.
NCUIH and 29 other AI/AN-focused organizations signed a joint
letter urging Federal leaders to address Indian Country's
infrastructure priorities. As outlined in further detail below, the
letter includes several requests for infrastructure investments to help
urban Indian populations receive health care.
Infrastructure for Urban Indian Organizations
Facilities Funding Restrictions
A restriction in the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (IHCIA)
prevents UIOs from making facilities improvements, impacting the
provision of services to AI/ANs. Chronic underfunding of UIOs, without
any facilities funding, coupled with this statutory restriction, have
prevented UIOs from making necessary improvements to their facilities.
This restriction has real and significant impacts. For example, as the
COVID-19 pandemic was devastating Indian Country, the whole IHS system
had to immediately adjust (i.e. transition to telehealth, install
negative pressurizing rooms, upgrade air purification systems, and make
other facility renovations) to safely serve patients. However, UIOs
were prohibited from making some of those transitions due to this
restriction.
The pandemic only compounded on an existing problem--the lack of an
avenue for using existing resources for infrastructure at UIOs. In
fact, in a NCUIH survey, 86 percent of UIOs report needing to make
facilities and infrastructure upgrades, while 74 percent of UIOs report
unmet needs for new construction to better serve patients. These needs
include, but are not limited, to the construction of urgent care
facilities and infectious disease areas, capacity expansion projects,
ventilation system improvements, and upgrades to telehealth and
electronic health records systems.
The Urban Indian Health Providers Facilities Improvement Act was
recently introduced by Senators Alex Padilla (D-CA) and James Lankford
(R-OK) (S. 1797) to allow UIOs to make critical updates and pave the
way for increased investment in renovation and construction of UIO
facilities by undoing this unnecessary restriction. This bill is a
critical legislative fix of an oversight in Section 509 (25 U.S.C.
1659) of IHCIA that prohibits UIOs from using money appropriated to use
on infrastructure and facilities improvement projects unless the
project is undertaken to meet accreditation standards from The Joint
Commission (TJC), which is no longer the applicable accreditation body
among the vast majority of UIOs.
There is broad, widespread support for allowing UIOs to use
existing resources to upgrade facilities. In addition to being included
in the inter-organization Tribal infrastructure letter, a resolution
passed the National Congress of American (NCAI) on June 24, 2021, ``AK-
21-020: Call for Congress to Amend Section 509 of the Indian Health
Care Improvement Act to Remove Facility Funding Barriers for Urban
Indian Organizations (UIOs)''. The President's FY22 IHS budget and
House Interior Appropriations draft bill included support for this
legislative fix as well. We urge members of this Committee to take up
this legislation and lend their support of S. 1797 on behalf of the 70
percent of AI/AN population who live in urban areas.
Health Care Facilities Construction
Another request in the inter-organizational Tribal infrastructure
letter includes $21 billion in infrastructure funds for the Indian
health system including facilities funds for UIOs. We respectfully ask
this Committee to ensure these necessary facility funds are provided to
the Indian Health System including UIOs. In fact, according to IHS
testimony on June 16, 2021, the total need for the Health Care
Facilities Construction (HCFC) Program in an early draft reports
indicates an increase in the need up to approximately $22 billion
amount. \1\ However, this likely does not include UIOs as they are
ineligible for the IHS facilities funds at issue. Thus, considerable
investments in the entire I/T/U have documented need.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Examining Federal Facilities in Indian Country
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
UIOs have traditionally been excluded from facilities and
construction funds from IHS and are unable to receive funding from the
IHS Health Care Facilities Construction Priority program, the
Maintenance & Improvement IHS budget line item, or participate in the
agency's Joint Venture Construction Program. To be clear, there is no
dedicated funding allocation for UIO facilities, maintenance,
sanitation, or medical equipment, among other imperative facilities
needs that have only been heightened in the wake of the COVID-19
pandemic.
Without access to facilities funding, like that available to IHS
and tribal facilities, UIOs must use their already limited resources on
facilities maintenance and necessary upkeep. UIOs have had to take out
loans and collect donations to build and maintain health facilities for
a growing population. Many UIO facilities are well beyond their
anticipated and projected lifespan; adequately funding facility upkeep
is essential to prolonging the usability of such facilities. For these
reasons, significant facilities improvements and maintenance issues
remain.
Equitable construction and facility support funding for UIOs can be
accomplished by including language authorizing a new budget line item
to address UIO infrastructure needs. Allowing the continued
deterioration of critical health facilities goes against the federal
trust obligation to provide quality healthcare to all American Indians
and Alaska Natives. When patients and providers lack access to well-
functioning infrastructure, the delivery of care and patient health is
always compromised.
Extend Full (100 percent) Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP)
We also urge the Committee to provide parity in the IHS system by
enacting permanent 100 percent FMAP for UIOs, which should give UIOs
access to additional much needed funds. The average U.S. health care
spending is around $12,000 per person; however, Tribal and IHS
facilities receive only around $4,000 per patient. What's more, UIOs
receive just $672 per IHS patient--that is only 6 percent of the per
capita amount. This dismal amount of funding makes third party
reimbursements, like those received through Medicaid, even more
essential to UIO operations.
Congress recognized the importance of Medicaid to the Indian health
system in 1976, when it authorized the billing of Medicaid ``to enable
Medicaid funds to flow into IHS institutions.these Medicaid payments
are viewed as a much-needed supplement to a health care program which
has for too long been insufficient to provide quality health care to
the American Indian.'' \2\ Since Medicaid services provided at UIOs
have not been reimbursed by the federal government at 100 percent like
they are for IHS and tribal facilities, UIOs receive fewer third-party
funds. This limits their ability to collect additional reimbursement
dollars that can be used to provide additional services or serve
additional patients. In effect, the Federal Government only covers 100
percent of the cost of Medicaid services for AI/ANs receiving those
services at an IHS or tribal facility and skirts full responsibility if
an individual happens to receive the service in an urban area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ H.R. REP. NO. 94-1026, pt. III at 21 (1976), reprinted in 1976
U.S.C.C.A.N. 2782, 2796
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
100 percent FMAP reimbursement for IHS and tribal facilities has
enabled: (1) IHS and Tribes to receive higher rates (more reimbursement
funds) for services, (2) IHS and Tribes to provide additional services,
and (3) states to reinvest the money they have saved into the Indian
health system. UIOs providing services to tribal members residing in
urban areas have historically been unable to receive these benefits.
The American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) temporarily authorized 100 percent
FMAP for services at UIOs for the next two years, which is a welcome
start to achieving parity. However, a permanent fix is necessary for
UIOs to realize benefits as to date, three months after the passage of
ARPA, no UIO has received a single additional dollar. Moreover, the
need for 100 percent FMAP does not end when the pandemic ends. We urge
you to act and support legislation for permanent 100 percent FMAP for
UIOs as is extended to all other Indian Health Care Providers (IHCPs).
Establish an Urban Confer Policy for HHS
Another priority included in the inter-organization Tribal
infrastructure letter is a request to extend urban confer to agencies
at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for policies
related to urban Indian health. Currently, only IHS has a legal
obligation to confer with UIOs, despite the fact that numerous agencies
implement programs that directly impact UIO operations. It is
imperative that the many branches and divisions within HHS and all
agencies under its purview establish a formal confer process with UIOs
on policies that impact them and their AI/AN patients living in urban
centers. Urban confer policies do not supplant or otherwise impact
tribal consultation and the government-to-government relationship
between tribes and federal agencies; but provide a key mechanism for
engaging with the entire IHS I/T/U system. In fact, NCAI passed a
resolution in support of urban confer in 2020. \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Call for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
Secretary to Implement an Urban Confer Policy Across the Department and
its Divisions
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the reason why urban confer
is so critical, as without designated urban confer policies, agencies
operate as if only IHS has a trust obligation to AI/ANs. Throughout the
pandemic, UIOs have had no way to formally engage with key agencies
that oversee pandemic response such as the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, and the Health
Resources and Services Administration among others. This has caused an
undue burden to IHS by requiring the agency to be present in all
discussions regarding Indian Country, if the conversations even happen
at all. It is imperative that UIOs have avenues for direct
communication with all agencies charged with overseeing the health of
their AI/AN patients. We respectfully request the Committee support
legislation to require an urban confer policy with any agency that has
jurisdiction over urban Indian health, including HHS and all of its
agencies which will streamline efforts to support UIO facilities
infrastructure and improvements.
Conclusion
These critical infrastructure needs are essential to ensure that
urban Indians have access to high quality, culturally competent health
care services. It is the obligation of the United States government to
provide these resources for AI/AN people residing in urban areas. This
obligation does not disappear amid a pandemic, instead it should be
strengthened, as the infrastructure need in Indian Country is greater
than ever. We urge this Committee to take this obligation seriously by
providing UIOs with all the resources necessary to protect the lives of
the entirety of the AI/AN population, regardless of where they live.
______
Prepared Statement of Carol Gore, President/CEO, Cook Inlet Housing
Authority
Dear Chairman Schatz and Vice Chair Murkowski,
Thank you for the invitation to participate in the roundtable with
the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs ``Concrete Solutions: Building a
Successful Foundation for Native Communities' Infrastructure
Development.'' I also thank you for your years of advocating for
housing for America's Native families. Your dedication has made a
difference in the lives of our youth, elders, and working families. In
the spirit of this roundtable I have organized this letter into three
discussion questions that address conditions in Alaska, but are also
broadly applicable to Native communities across the United States.
Overall, the goal for an infrastructure package should be to remember
that housing is infrastructure--we don't need roads or water lines if
there are no houses with people in them.
I. How important is housing to the Infrastructure of a village?
Native people across the United States simply need a safe,
affordable and healthy home to thrive. When people thrive1 the village
will also thrive. Investing in homes for our people is a critical piece
of our economy. Given a choice between highways, bridges and housing--
we would choose to build housing.
To put it simply, a village cannot survive without adequate,
affordable housing. The safety officers, teachers, healthcare workers,
and power plant operators who are essential for a village to survive
need housing to live in themselves, in addition to having adequate
housing for those who are locally born and raised. Without a decent
place to live, these essential workers will not take jobs in villages.
When speaking with law enforcement, school districts, and healthcare
providers, housing is often mentioned as the number 1 impediment to
attracting workers to remote Alaska. If these services are not
provided, people leave the village in search of a better life. If young
people are leaving, who will take care of elders with subsistence
hunting and fishing? If a village cannot attract and retain those who
are essential to their community, how can their village thrive?
Housing is the first piece of infrastructure in a village. Roads,
water lines, power, and more do not exist to serve empty places. They
serve people's homes. But there is no private market in our villages.
So without NAHAS DA, there is no development of homes in most of our
rural villages. The funding appropriated under the authority of the
Native American Housing and Self Determination Act (NAHASDA) is the
primary and sometimes only funding source for development of housing
that provides the support for northern climate construction and
opportunity to adapt to the subsistence economics of village life.
Support for NAHASDA funding is key for ensuring villages have an
opportunity to bring the infrastructure needed to advance economic
opportunity in rural Alaska.
Why does this matter now? It matters because housing, the first
piece of infrastructure in a village, is overcrowded and inadequate in
our rural villages. On a national scale, the 2017 Housing Needs of
American Indians and Alaska Natives study from HUD tells us we need
34,000 homes to alleviate overcrowding and 34 percent of our homes have
a major physical deficiency in tribal areas. Closer to home, the Alaska
Housing Finance Corporation in their 2018 Housing Needs Assessment
found that 40 percent of homes in the Yukon-Kuskokwim are overcrowded
or severely overcrowded and 35 percent have incomplete plumbing. The
overcrowding is so bad for some homes that 18 people share a small 3-
bedroom home requiring people to sleep in shifts throughout the day for
lack of surfaces for everyone to sleep at one. How can people sleeping
the day shift ever hold down a job? How can children learn when their
home is so overcrowded they have no place to study and they carry the
stress and anxiety of their home life into school? How will those
children grow up and have a job if they never had a chance to learn how
to read and do math?
II. What can the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs do to help develop
infrastructure?
NAHASDA is a great tool with good outcomes and yet we've been flat-
funded. I urge you to consider three things:
1. Recognize that housing is infrastructure and Include NAHASDA
as part of whatever infrastructure bill moves through Congress;
and
2. Help correct the historical injustice of the HUD budget to
bring equity to Indian housing; over the last 20 years, HU D's
budget grew more than 100 percent to $56 billion while the
Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) grew just 4 percent; and
3. Reauthorize NAHASDA. NAHASDA created programs that are not
prescriptive or ``one-size fits all'' programs so tribes can
use the funding authorized and appropriated to respond to the
priorities in each village or community. We have a ready
pipeline based on the needs of our villages. What we need is
more NAHASDA funding.
Though increasing funding for ongoing programs is never easy, we
are asking you to bring equity to HUD funding within Public and Indian
housing. If we look to the inequity between HUD's overall budget and
the IHBG, we know that our Native people are being left behind.
Informing the rest of Congress and the President of their obligation to
follow through with equity in funding is the biggest opportunity to
bring equity to the IHBG we have seen for some time.
We want our villages and Native communities to thrive. We know
adequate and healthy housing can make a difference in our educational,
health and social outcomes. But we are falling further and further
behind simply because of flat and inadequate funding.
III. Are there other mechanisms that SCIA members can advance outside
of NAHASDA to develop infrastructure in tribal areas?
A colleague told a gathering of the National American Indian
Housing Council a few years ago that if they had just used NAHASDA it
would have taken 100 years to accomplish what they had in the last 20
years. That statement reveals the power of leveraging NAHASDA funds
with private capital and innovative financing to accomplish our goals
for Native families. From our experience, the most transformative tool
has been the Affordable Housing Tax Credit, formerly the Low-Income
Housing Tax Credit. These tax credits marry private equity with
mission-driven housing to increase the supply and quality of housing
for people who earn a low income. As successful as they can be, their
reach is limited when working with Native families. The small state
minimum allocation allows only 2-4 projects per year in Alaska.
Increasing the small state minimum would allow more projects to attract
private equity. Including a basis boost for projects that serve Native
people would also help increase equity available in high cost areas. Of
the nine (9) states that receive minimum allocations of tax credits,
five (5, Alaska, North Dakota, Montana, South Dakota, Wyoming) have a
high Native population.
Another avenue for development lies with Community Development
Financial Institutions (CDFIs), who play a major role in access to
capital for Native people. Supporting legislation that increases
targets for financial assistance to Native CDFIs increases the amount
of assistance that goes to Native families and entrepreneurs. Whether
for home loans, down payment assistance, or a business startup, Native
CDFIs operate in a space targeted to people who are not served well by
traditional finance.
Senators, the work to develop our Native communities is not easy
but I thank you for your continued work to help our Native people.
Please let me know if CIHA can be a resource for questions or dialogue
on how to develop our Native communities. Thank you for the opportunity
to share with you.
______
Prepared Statement of the Ute Indian Tribe
Chairman Brian Schatz, Ranking Member Lisa Murkowski and members of
the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments
in response to the Senate Committee on Indian Affair's June 23, 2021,
Roundtable Discussion on ``Concrete Solutions: Building a Successful
Foundation for Native Communities' Infrastructure Development.''
The Ute Indian Tribe has an extensive network of infrastructure
across our Uintah and Ouray Reservation (Reservation). Our Reservation
covers about 4.5 million acres making it the second-largest reservation
in the United States. Our Reservation is larger than the State of
Connecticut and infrastructure investments are needed to provide safe
and secure law enforcement facilities and support, transportation,
water sources, housing, and responsible and reliable energy resources
to promote economic development in our communities and the surrounding
region.
As you may know, the Federal government has chronically underfunded
infrastructure in Indian Country. This is a failure and violation of
the Federal government's treaty and trust responsibilities to Indian
tribes. In many cases, tribes have had to take matters into their own
hands to make any progress on federal infrastructure responsibilities.
We look forward to making progress on a number of infrastructure
projects and investments badly needed on our Reservation. Below, we
provide an overview of our infrastructure priorities. Many of these
projects have been studied for years and are simply awaiting action.
The Ute Indian Tribe supports your examination of infrastructure
development in Indian Country.
Tribal Law Enforcement Facilities
In 2006, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) condemned its lone
detention center on our Reservation. When our facility was closed, BIA
committed to replacing it as soon as possible, and BIA placed the
facility at the top of its law enforcement replacement priority list.
BIA went so far as to complete a pre-planning study for a new facility
with the Tribe. However, by the time the pre-planning study was
completed, BIA had stopped funding law enforcement facilities
construction, including detention centers and tribal courts.
After more than a decade on the BIA's facility replacement
waitlist, and without a detention center, the Tribe took matters into
its own hands. In close consultation with BIA's Office of Facilities
Management and Construction, relevant Congressional Committees, using
federal health, safety, and space utilization standards, the Tribe
decided to use tribal funds to construct a new Tribal Justice Center.
In 2017, the Tribe opened its new $38 million Tribal Justice
Center. Construction of the facility was completed with only tribal
funds. The facility includes over 105,000 square feet of space, spans
over 15 acres, and includes 60 adult short/long term beds, 40 juvenile
beds, and houses our tribal courts. The Justice Center meets all BIA
and United States Department of Justice standards and program
requirements to protect staff and persons incarcerated at the facility.
However, and despite our investment in providing law and order on our
Reservation, BIA has not yet provided the funding needed to fully staff
and operate our Justice Center.
Staffing and Operating our Tribal Justice Center
Facilities construction is only half of the story. Once these
facilities are constructed, BIA still needs human infrastructure to
staff and operate facilities to meet tribal needs. Congress must take
action to fulfill these important treaty and trust responsibilities.
The agreements between the Federal government and Indian tribes were
critical to the foundation and success of the United States.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs Office of Justice Services (BIA-OJS)
administers law enforcement services for the Tribe as a direct service
function. BIA-OJS was directly involved over a three-year period in the
development and completion of the new Tribal Justice Center. However,
now that the Justice Center is constructed and ready to operate, BIA-
OJS still has not sought or provided the federal funding to fully staff
and operate the Justice Center.
BIA-OJS provides just 5 full-time correction officers to run a 100-
bed detention facility. This is unacceptable. BIA-OJS advises us that
it needs a total of $4,844,000 million to fully operate our detention
center at federally mandated standards. This includes $2,675,464
million for the adult wing and $2,169,422 million for the juvenile
section.
Even worse, until the Justice Center is fully staffed, BIA is
forced to use federal funds to house many detainees in county jails. We
have adequate space in our Justice Facility to take violent offenders,
drug dealers, and individuals with outstanding warrants off our
streets. Yet, every two weeks, BIA-OJS uses federal funds to send 30 or
more adults to county detention facilities under a separate outsourcing
contract with the county.
BIA's failure to adequately staff the Justice Center has also
resulted in a situation in which our tribal judges are forced to
release one prisoner to detain another. BIA law enforcement has told
tribal judges that warrant enforcement must slow down because the
United States cannot afford to house these offenders in county jails.
The lack of funding for these programs is also undercutting
Congressional intent. We cannot enforce the Violence Against Women Act
and the jurisdictional provisions of the Tribal Law and Order Act if
our federal partners do not take adequate steps to ensure these
staffing issues are addressed.
In anticipation of these very staffing shortages, the Tribe and BIA
previously entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) under the
authority of the Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act, 25 U.S.C.
2804(e), to ensure that maintenance and ongoing operations would be
funded for the Justice Center. Under the MOU, the Tribe funds various
law enforcement officers who supplement existing BIA law enforcement
services. Under the MOU, the Tribe has historically funded more than 50
percent of on-Reservation law enforcement operations. The purpose of
the MOU was to provide ``stop-gap'' funding to cover these operations
and management costs while the Tribe's Indian Self-Determination and
Education Assistance Act, P.L. 93-638, funding contract was finalized
and approved by BIA. This contract was never fulfilled.
In addition, while tribal courts have operated in BIA-funded
buildings for more than 50 years, in the last ten years, the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) determined that the construction,
operation, and maintenance of tribal courts is a tribal responsibility.
OMB did this without any Congressional action and no tribal
consultation. Tribal court programs are primarily funded under Indian
Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act contracts, also known
as ``638 Contracts.'' OMB did not take into account that a 638 Contract
can be retroceded by a tribe to the Federal government at any time. As
a result, there is no question that these are federal responsibilities.
Bureau of Indian Affairs Leasing Authority
BIA-OJS needs its own justice center leasing authority to fully
staff our Justice Facility. BIA only has the leasing authority under
P.L. 93-638, section 105(l) of the Indian Self-Determination and
Education Assistance Act and, currently, this leasing and funding
authority is limited to education and healthcare contracted or
compacted services, not direct services that BIA-OJS provides.
BIA-OJS needs this authority to provide tribes with the option to
use their own funds to speed the replacement of law enforcement
facilities and save federal dollars. Under this authority tribes would
be able to construct, with private funds, a law enforcement, detention,
or tribal court building, with the assurance that the Department of the
Interior and BIA will make every effort to request the funds necessary
to lease, staff, operate and maintain that building after it is
constructed. We did this through constant consultation with BIA-OJS,
but now without independent leasing authority we are unable to fully
staff and operate our Tribal Justice Center.
Investments Needed for Safe Drinking Water Infrastructure
The delivery of safe drinking water to our tribal members is of the
highest priority for the Tribe. The vast majority of our members live
on the Reservation and are provided with water for domestic,
commercial, municipal, and industrial (DCMI) purposes by our Ute Tribal
Water System (UTWS). Our UTWS service area covers roughly 175 square
miles, including the towns of Whiterocks, Fort Duchesne, Randlett,
Ouray, and other rural areas. We also operate a high school for our
tribal members in Fort Duchesne, Utah. Through external connections,
our UTWS is also the sole water supplier to the Ballard Water
Improvement District, the Ouray Park Improvement District, and the
Independence region of the Johnson Water Improvement District.
Our UTWS diverts and treats water from Whiterocks and Uriah Heap
Springs, which is delivered by gravity through nearly 60 miles of
pipelines and numerous valves, hydrants, and water meters. Each spring
subsystem on the UTWS has its own water treatment facility. Whiterocks
typically takes 100 gpm through treatment, while Uriah Heap takes about
700 gpm through its system. The Whiterocks Springs subsystem serves 115
connections with an average daily demand of 63 gpm. Uriah Heap has 815
connections and an average daily demand of 700 gpm.
In 2010, we asked an engineering firm to evaluate the conditions of
the water collection systems at Whiterocks River and Uriah Heap
Springs. They found that multiple improvements for environmental health
and better water management within our UTWS were needed. Deteriorated
conditions included vegetation growth and poor surface drainage in the
spring areas, root intrusion, sediments, and cracking in collection
pipes, a lack of water meters in the system, a need for increased water
quality monitoring in the system, and unmonitored spillage of untreated
spring water into local canals. Though customer water meters have since
been installed and a new Uriah Heap treatment plant was built, not all
recommended improvements have been fully implemented.
In 2014, another engineering firm observed or was made aware of the
following concerns related to our UTWS:
Continued poor surface drainage and vegetation in spring
collection fields;
Insufficient fencing around springs that could allow
livestock to contaminate water sources;
Rusted, leaking, or overflowing water storage tanks;
Freezing or burst water pipes in the winter throughout the
system;
Vandalism of UTWS structures; and
A strong need for a hydraulic model to understand water flow
within the system.
Despite these issues and our requests for support, the Indian
Health Service (IHS) has not been able to fund and install spillage
meters needed at both springs for several years, and individual water
meters are not read; as a result, both users and external connections
pay only a flat monthly water rate regardless of use. Although we
appreciate the technical support that IHS has been able to provide,
most of its limited infrastructure or construction funding goes towards
drilling domestic water wells for individual tribal members. As a
result, our UTWS has continued to suffer from a lack of maintenance,
rehabilitation, and expansion funding.
Due to chronic underfunding for our UTWS, we have had difficulty
maintaining, providing, and ensuring that our tribal members have
access to safe drinking water. Since 2018, we have made a concerted
effort to improve our internal monitoring and auditing procedures
related to the quality of the water delivered by our UTWS. However, the
lack of consistent and available funding sources to rehabilitate,
improve, and expand access to our UTWS remains a significant and
serious issue for the majority of our tribal members.
Investments Needed for Water Storage
The need for water storage on our Reservation has been clearly and
repeatedly documented for over 100 years. Indeed, it is well known that
irrigation and other related tribal water projects cannot be successful
in an arid environment without water storage infrastructure. The
Federal government has acknowledged, on many documented occasions, its
obligation to manage water projects through storage facilities, yet the
Tribe continues to face water storage deficits on a regular basis.
It is unbelievable that our Reservation homelands were established
in this arid region and we still lack a water storage facility to
support our municipal, irrigation and water development needs.
Meanwhile, the non-Indian residents of Utah are served by the Central
Utah Project-one of the largest water storage and delivery projects in
the United States. Because of these documented water shortages, the
Tribe has sought to develop viable, environmentally sound storage
facility options that will regulate the flows of Reservation streams
and provide an ample and dependable water supply for the Tribe.
Storage, combined with natural flow, is the only way the Tribe can
fully develop its irrigation system, provide for our members, and put
our reserved water rights to use. We ask that the Federal government
make good on its commitment to provide the water infrastructure
promised and needed for our homelands.
The ability to store water is vital to our Uintah Indian Irrigation
Project (Project). The Project is one of 16 Indian Irrigation Projects
that the BIA is directed to manage in support of the Federal
government's trust responsibilities, and to create economic development
opportunities on our Reservation through agriculture. Our water users
pay annual operations and maintenance fees, but chronic underfunding of
the Project has resulted in layers of problems. Current problems are
well documented and include decades of deferred maintenance and the
need for repair and replacement of diversion structures, canals,
laterals, and ditches to bring the deteriorated infrastructure up to
current standards. And, as noted, the Project lacks the basic storage
that irrigation systems rely on to regulate the natural flows of the
rivers and the rehabilitation and betterment of our Project.
We ask that the Congress honor and fulfill the United States'
treaty and trust responsibilities to support our critical need for
water storage infrastructure. Storage infrastructure is needed to
support and provide for the Tribe's Reservation homelands in Utah.
Actions are needed to improve BIA's management of our water irrigation
projects and to secure funding that will enable us to get the full
economic benefit of our Indian reserved water rights.
Equity for Indian Housing
In 2017, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
published a five-year study on the housing needs of American Indians
and Alaskan Natives. The study found that conservatively, Indian
Country needed over 68,000 housing units, not including the existing
units that included over 34 percent of households having severe
infrastructure deficiencies, such as inadequate plumbing, heating, and
electrical issues, compared to U.S. households.
The program that funds Indian Housing, the Native American Housing
Assistance and Self Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA), revolutionized
how housing assistance was provided to Indian Country. The two programs
authorized for Indian tribes under NAHASDA are the Indian Housing Block
Grant (IHBG) and Title VI Loan Guarantee program. This critical
infrastructure law has been expired since 2013 and has continued to be
flat funded year after year.
However, Congress needs to correct the historical injustice Indian
Country has seen since the passage of NAHASDA. In the 25 years since
the NAHASDA was authorized, HUD's annual budget has grown more than 50
percent to more than $56 billion; at the same time, the Indian Housing
Block Grant, the primary funding component of NAHASDA, has only grown 4
percent from $440 million to $650 million. When adjusted for inflation,
Indian Country has seen a net loss since first being funded; $650
million in 2021's dollars equate to only $393 million in 1998.
That fact is not lost on Indian Country. Tribes had been fighting
for permanent reauthorization for NAHASDA well before the law expired
in 2013. Additionally, the general HUD budget has an additional
component NAHASDA desperately needs. HUD is immune to inflation as a
result of an automatic 2 percent inflation adjustment every year, while
NAHASDA is subject to the whims of Congress. Indian Country needs
Congress to reauthorize NAHASDA permanently including the automatic
inflation adjustment.
Support for Tribal Gas Fired Power Plant and Generation Facilities
The Committee and Congress should provide additional support for
Indian energy development and related infrastructure. Energy projects
bring other types of infrastructure development to often remote or
rural Indian reservations. To develop large scale energy projects, we
need roads and bridges. We also need federal laws and programs that
provide access to financial capital.
We have a long history of responsibly developing energy resources
on our Reservation homeland. The Tribe relies on revenues from energy
production to fund the Tribe's government and provide services to its
membership. However, on the power generation side, a sizable portion of
the electricity generated on and serving communities on the Reservation
is generated at the controversial coal-fired Bonanza Power Plant. Based
on EPA data, the Bonanza Power Plant emitted over 5,300 tons of ozone
producing NOx into the atmosphere along with over 1,400 tons of SO2 and
4,100,000 tons of greenhouse gas C02.
The Tribe is currently developing an energy generation hub on the
Reservation utilizing clean energy resources. The core of the energy
generation hub will be a natural gas-fired power plant on the
Reservation. This facility will be developed as a combined cycle power
generation plant consisting of up to approximately 550 megawatts, using
currently untapped Tribal natural gas resources, together with (i)
electric distribution lines and natural gas pipelines, and (ii) all
ancillary systems required for stand-alone operation (e.g., water
treatment plant and cooling system). This project would also include a
substantial solar photovoltaic (PV) component designed to generate up
to 150 megawatts.
Completing this Tribally-owned energy generation hub would mark a
critical step in establishing a Tribal electric utility service. The
primary incumbent utility that provides electric power to the Tribe and
its members on the Reservation is a non-Tribal electric cooperative,
and most of the electricity delivered by the incumbent utility is
generated by the coal-fired Bonanza Power Plant. Establishing a Tribal
utility is an act of self-determination, and also a means of creating a
system that will (i) enhance natural gas development on the
Reservation, (ii) decrease the Tribe's reliance on a state-based
utility authority, and (iii) potentially attract other outside
businesses wishing to take advantage of business incentives associated
with utilizing a Tribal utility.
The Tribe is currently working in partnership with a project
developer with considerable experience in the power generation and
marketing industry. Currently, the project is advancing through its
``Phase 3'' predevelopment phase, which includes load and transmission
studies, preliminary engineering designs, and completion of financial
models. Completion of this phase will allow the Tribe to advance this
project toward the execution of transmission and power sales
agreements.
The Tribe plans to continue dedicating considerable time and
resources toward the advancement of this project. The Tribe requests
support from Congress to help put the Tribe in the best position to
bring this important project to fruition. In particular, to support
Tribal financing of utility scale energy projects, legislation is
needed to expand Tribal Economic Development Bonds, the BIA Guaranteed
Loan Program, and the Department of Energy Indian Energy Loan Guarantee
Program. Congress can also create additional incentives to finance or
utilize power generated using Tribally-owned facilities on Tribal
lands.
Conclusion
The United States and Congress have obligations based on treaties,
agreements, and the Federal government's trust responsibility to meet
these basic infrastructure needs. Like many tribes, the Ute Indian
Tribe needs Congress to provide significant funding to finally meet
these obligations, particularly as we all work to recover from COVID-19
pandemic. When tribes take the initiative to build and fund their own
facilities according to federal standards, our federal partners, in
particular BIA, need Congress to provide adequate funding and support
us and ensure the proper operation and investment in infrastructure.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments.
______
U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS--ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION ON
CLOSING THE DIGITAL DIVIDE IN NATIVE COMMUNITIES THROUGH INFRASTRUCTURE
INVESTMENT--WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2022
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:33 p.m. in room 628,
Dirksen Senate Building, the Honorable Brian Schatz, Chairman of the
Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Schatz, Murkowski, Cantwell, Tester, Cortez
Masto, Smith, Rounds.
The Chairman. Good afternoon. Can everybody hear me? Great.
Welcome to today's roundtable. I apologize for the delay in getting
online. The roundtable is entitled Closing the Digital Divide in Native
Communities through Infrastructure Investment. I want to thank everyone
for participating and logging on.
Today we are going to hear about how the investment in broadband
infrastructure is helping to close the digital divide, especially in
Native communities. On December 22nd, the White House announced $10
million in awards for the deployment and expansion of broadband
infrastructure to deliver highspeed internet in Native communities.
This investment through grants issued by Commerce, Treasury, and USDA
is in addition to the over $3 billion in broadband funding to be
awarded through the Infrastructure Act of 2021.
I will kick things off with some questions in a minute. Actually,
we are going to first go to Jon Tester, who has to chair the Veterans
Affairs Committee after we introduce our panelists. For panelists,
members will be able to see you on WebEx and call on you accordingly. I
would ask that you remain on mute. Panelists should feel free to jump
in any time, even if a question is not directed to them. This is
designed, although it is on the internet, to be a little bit more of a
free-flowing discussion. Please also identify yourself so the court
reporter can accurately pick up who is speaking.
Let me take the prerogative to introduce our guest from Hawaii,
Donavan Kealoha, CEO and Co-Founder of Purple Mai'a, in my home State
of Hawaii. Aloha, and welcome.
Senator Murkowski, are you online to introduce your guest from
Alaska? If not, I will go ahead and walk through all of the panelists,
then we will get right into the conversation.
We have Ms. Hallie Bissett, Executive Director, Alaska Native
Village Corporation Association, and Chair of the Alaska Broadband Task
Force. We also have the Honorable Manuel Heart, Chairman of the Ute
Mountain Ute Tribe, Towaoc, Colorado. The Honorable William Smith,
Chairman and Alaska Area Representative, National Indian Health Board.
Walter Haase, General Manager, Navajo Tribal Utility Authority, Fort
Defiance, Arizona. Ms. Carrie Billy, President and CEO of American
Indian Higher Education Consortium. And Mr. Matthew Rantanen, Co-Chair
of the Subcommittee, Technology and Telecommunications of the National
Congress of American Indians. Welcome to you all.
I have a brief opening statement, very brief. When it comes to the
internet and accessing the internet to bridge the digital divide,
Native communities face specific challenges. High costs, especially
remoteness, inadequate basic infrastructure, and the high cost of
hardware continues to make this divide tougher in Native communities
than really any other place. That is why Congress' recent authorization
sending billions of dollars to help Native communities invest in
broadband infrastructure is simply a game changer. But we have to get
this right. That is why we want to hear from all of you.
Vice Chair Murkowski, I would welcome any opening statement from
you. If not, I am going to go ahead and kick it right to Jon Tester so
that he can ask his questions and move on to his obligations to share
the Veterans Committee.
Senator Tester. You are very kind Mr. Chairman. Don't let the
background fool you, I am not in Hawaii. I am sitting in my office.
I do have a couple of questions. I appreciate the flexibility here.
This is for Mr. Rantanen. Infrastructure, jobs, investment in the
Jobs Act has historical investments in tribal broadband that is going
to help close the digital divide, especially in Indian Country. Yet I
will tell you and I think you know that billions of dollars in funding
doesn't mean a doggone thing if we are not prepared to work with the
tribes, and the tribes aren't prepared to work with us to make sure
that the funding is effectively implemented.
What recommendations does NCAI have in ensuring that the broadband
funds in the Infrastructure Bill are implemented properly? Do you have
any recommendations that you are giving to the tribes?
Mr. Rantanen. Matthew Rantanen, National Congress of American
Indians. The recommendations are to, if you don't have relationship
with your State government, to develop some of those State
relationships around broadband. Because as we are seeing in many States
like California and some others, they are actively pursuing broadband
solutions at the middle mile level to bring connectivity into the
regions, the rural regions where the tribes are. The tribes should be
in those conversations and those development projects to be able to
understand the benefits coming to them. Then through the Federal
funding that they are getting, the benefits of them working with the
State to work together and stretch that dollar and make sure that they
get connectivity out of that. So, State relationships are key.
Senator Tester. I agree with you. I appreciate that perspective,
because I think it is key. Hopefully you can continue to push your
membership to work, and of course, it goes both ways. The consultations
from the States and Federal Government is also critically important as
we move forward to make sure that everybody has broadband access.
The next question is for Chief Smith. I come from Montana; I can go
for hours in between health service areas. I know the importance of
telehealth. Quite frankly, I think it is a real opportunity to serve
some of our rural and remote areas in a positive way. However, from our
tribal constituents, I have often heard how they have a hard time
accessing telehealth due to a lack of broadband in their areas. This
was especially evident during the start of the pandemic back in 2020.
Chief Smith, I understand that NIHB has been working closely with
the tribes to increase access to telehealth. Can you describe how
funding has helped increase that access to telehealth, and what else
needs to be done in this space?
Mr. Smith. Thank you for that question. This is Chief Bill Smith. I
am also a Vietnam vet. I would like to talk a little bit about some of
the things in the VA and the Indian Health Service. Yesterday, I was on
an interview with the VA about a new system they call the VA Navigator.
They gave me a scenario about how would this work. The bottom line is,
it is one veteran talking to another veteran to get the system to work.
Because the only way to navigate the VA system is to actually be there
and do it, and then help your brothers and sisters through it.
So if they follow through with this new navigating system for the
telehealth, it would be great. But like I told them, I said, it is the
most important job that anyone has at the VA, is realizing that their
job is to serve the veterans. Because they have earned every right that
they have.
With that being said, a lot of times at the VA the people just say,
oh, I just have a job. Well, no, your job is to serve the veterans and
give them the help that they need.
Telehealth is one way to do it. I experienced telehealth myself
when I had a doctor in Idaho. Even though I had to drive 300 miles up
to the VA deal to talk to my doctor in Idaho, if I was able to talk to
that same doctor from my home, I would not have to take a 300-mile trip
one way. Like you say, the weather has been so bad that houses and
trucks and everything have been blown off the road between Palmer and
Anchorage.
So making that journey, and the long distances, the telehealth
would be a much-improved way for not only veterans, but American
Indians and Alaska Natives over our rough terrain. There are many, this
new bill that Senator Schatz has about the Connect Health Act,
Americans Indians and Alaska Natives, that would work great.
And working with telehealth between the Indian Health Service and
the VA, it would work if you could speak to each other, and it would
cut the costs down. Because when I go see the VA, I have to hand carry
my paper to them. I will just use an example, hey, let's get a blood
test, because you are a diabetic, you are a Vietnam vet, this is with
all the stuff, Agent Orange exposure. I said hey, I just did that the
other day over at the Indian Health Service. Why can't that record
cross over? Why can't we be able to speak to each other and get the
services that we need and cut the costs?
That is the biggest thing. If I have to take a $1,500 blood test at
one place, and I know it is the same at the other, plus driving as far
as I have to drive, if I could get telehealth services, I can go to my
local clinic and get the same blood draw, and they can get the blood to
them and then cut the costs.
I hope that answers your question.
Senator Tester. It does, and I want to thank you for that. Just
from a VA-Indian Health standpoint, I know Senator Rounds is on this
Zoom call, this is a big issue for us to have a Native American
population and large VA populations. You are right, there is a lot of
overlap and there is a lot of unnecessary duplication. We will continue
to push that envelop with McDonough and everybody else we can.
Thank you, Chief. I appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Chairman.
Now we have Vice Chair Murkowski for a brief opener and any
questions.
Senator Murkowski. Chairman Schatz, thank you. I am reminded, this
is a good conversation about broadband. We all know that oftentimes
when it comes to broadband, you can have the connection, but you need
technical support. So I spent the first seven minutes here trying to
get on while you were all there. I could hear you talking but I
couldn't see you and you couldn't see me. So it is just a reminder, we
have a lot of work to do.
Mr. Chairman, I have a pretty fulsome opening statement that I am
going to submit to the record. But to just very, very briefly recap, we
have an historic moment in front of us when it comes to the
opportunities that we have put in place legislatively with the
bipartisan Infrastructure Bill as well as the CARES Act funding that we
are directing toward broadband, and specifically toward tribal
broadband.
The fact that in the CARES Act money there was an $8 bill tribal
set-aside just was the initial round, and of course, all that has been
put in place within the Infrastructure Bill, an unprecedented $65
billion for broadband, with an additional $2 billion for the tribal
broadband grants, the tribal eligibility.
So what we are looking at is the largest investment in broadband
deployment and adoption in this Country ever, which is significant. We
know the divide is there and the divide is very real.
For my colleagues, I would just point you to the situation that we
face in Alaska, with our rural Alaska and our Native villages.
According to the FCC, 98.8 percent of urban areas have broadband access
of 25 megabits per second download, and 3 upload. But just 79 percent
of people on tribal lands and only 69.9 percent in Alaska Native
villages have this access.
So for us, when you have heard me kind of pound the table and say,
we need to be doing more in the broadband space, and we need to make
sure that we have these tribal set-asides, and we need to make sure
that it is not only going to be the underserved, but the unserved. And
not only noting that, but recognizing that when we haven't addressed
the issue of affordability, we haven't done anything to improve the
access.
In some of the communities, some of the villages that I have, they
might have access to internet. But if costs $300 a month for 10
megabytes download, you are just not going to sign up. So you may as
well not have anything at all. Affordability is something that we have
to address.
So the purpose of today's roundtable is to collect those insights
from so many of you that are involved, recognizing how we are going to
not only work to help provide for better health outcomes as my friend
Chairman William Smith has mentioned. Bill knows all too well the value
that telehealth brings. But it is in distance learning, it is in the
education side, it is in how we are going to be able to connect for
purposes of commerce. All of this comes together into one when we have
accessible, affordable broadband.
So I want to again thank Chairman Smith, with the National Indian
Health Board here, and about these Native tribes for being part of
today's conversation. But also, to a great leader back home, Hallie
Bissett, she is the Executive Director of the Alaska Native Village
Corporation Association. She has been the Chair for the Alaska
Broadband Task Force. They just recently released their report on how
to connect Alaskans with broadband. So I know she is going to have a
lot to contribute to the conversation.
Mr. Chairman, I will wrap my opening. I will submit my full
comments for the record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Murkowski follows:]
Senator Murkowski. But if it is appropriate at this point to ask a
question of Hallie Bissett, or I can wait until you want to call on
some other members.
The Chairman. Let me try to squeeze in Senator Cortez Masto right
now, because she has something else in five minutes. Then I will go
right back to you.
Senator Murkowski. Great.
The Chairman. Senator Cortez Masto.
Senator Cortez Masto. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much. Thank you
for putting this panel together.
I appreciate the comments from Senator Murkowski and Senator Tester
about telehealth. We all know, and this has been my biggest concern as
we are trying to bring broadband access and internet access to so many
across the Country, that there has been dollars in the past that we
have appropriated, but it just didn't get to where it needs to. Now,
with the bipartisan work of the Senate and Congress, there is really
over $42 billion going to States to help this connectivity.
Here is my first question. I am going to open it up to the panel,
because I am curious about this. My biggest concern is to make sure
that, at a Federal level, there is cooperation with Federal agencies to
really be able to streamline, simplify the application process and
better oversight of the Federal broadband support programs.
With the support of my colleagues, I was able to pass, in 2020, the
Access Broadband Act. Really what it did, it required the National
Telecommunications and Information Agency to establish the Office of
Internet Connectivity and Growth for the very reasons I just talked
about.
What I would like to hear from the panelists, as we look to get
this funding out there and get it into the communities and our tribal
communities, where they are underserved and we need the connectivity, I
am curious right now the level of coordination that you see happening
between the various agencies of the Federal, State and local.
What do we need to be aware of, to keep an eye on here at a Federal
level to make sure that coordination works, it is streamlined, and it
is getting to all of you? There is some money that has been set aside
specifically, and Senator Murkowski talked about this, $2 billion for
our tribal communities. But the tribes are going to be able to access
more of that money that we have allocated besides, outside of that $2
billion. I want to make sure we are streamlining this to make it easy
for all of you.
So I am curious, what do we need to know right now? Are there
barriers? Is there a lack of coordination right now? What are you
seeing that we need to be aware of?
I will just open it to the panelists. Does anybody have any
comments?
Mr. Heart. This is Chairman Manuel Heart from the Ute Mountain Ute
Tribe in Colorado. You have a good question there. I think the rural
areas of tribes, not all tribes have a land base. My tribe is in the
very southwest corner of Colorado, but we expanded to New Mexico and
Utah. We have two communities which are very rural.
Even though it is that close to the nearest town, it is 15 miles,
we have no black fiber that even comes close. Right now we are on a lot
of remote satellite type. Our government departments are at maximum
capacity right now. Our servers need to be replaced. But going back to
what the NIHB representative was talking about, telehealth is
something, even though our clinic is closed to in-person, it is hard
for us to even get any kind of appointments, whether it is dental,
vision, regular health. Even those just right here in our community,
based on what is going on with COVID.
So as we start to look at what is going on with partnerships in the
State of Colorado or New Mexico, or Utah, we need to be able to have
that communication. We do have a good communication with the State of
Colorado, the Colorado Commission of Indian Affairs. There are only two
tribes in Colorado. In Utah, we have eight, but we have a little bit of
a hard time working with the State of Utah to try to get things moving.
So each government is different.
As for rural areas, it is pretty hard to even get things going on
the education side with the online learning. Right now, we have had to
put in some hot spots where parents have to bring their students to a
parking lot just to access internet. I live two miles outside the
community. I have to come back into the community to access internet
for me personally. I can't do work at home, so I have to come back into
the tribal office to get some work done.
So areas of concern are telehealth, education, access to just
general stuff that is happening in the community. But we have no fiber
that comes straight into the community of our reservation. We are not
in an area where we live wherever we want. Our land base is 600,000
acres, but it is goes down to two communities, one in Colorado, and one
in southeast Utah.
So we have to try to find ways and dollars to get internet to each
one of the homes. We don't have that access right now. We do have some
outside companies that do satellites, but those are unreliable. They
get locked into a contract for two years, and whatever service they
provide, it is hard for them. So just a quick comment, Senator.
Senator Cortez Masto. Chairman Heart, thank you. It is the same
thing I hear in my State, in our rural communities and our tribal
communities as well.
Ms. Billy, did you have a comment?
Ms. Billy. Yes, I did, thank you. Thank you very much.
I want to just mention a kind of area where the tribal colleges and
universities have a conflict with State laws, where some State laws are
making it difficult for tribal colleges to join the national higher
education research and education infrastructure through State and
regional education and research networks.
It is somewhat complicated, so I don't want to go into a lot of the
details here. I will just say that the United States has developed a
very sophisticated research and education network cyber infrastructure.
It is made up of these State and regional networks that are all
connected together by internet, too.
So although most of the institutions of higher education in the
Country are connected to these networks, only 10 of the 35 accredited
tribal colleges are. One reason has to do with cost. So we have a plan
for that, especially for colleges that are located close to these
networks.
But the second reason is because of outdated State laws. There are
some States that have very old laws that prohibit or limit public or
government-owned networks. These are networks that would be much more
affordable, that are very secure, that sort of thing.
So even tribal colleges on tribal lands in these States that have
these laws that prohibit or limit public or government networks, they
can't join regional research and education networks. So we think
Congress should really look at this situation, these State laws, and
consider excluding tribal colleges and tribal lands from any State laws
that prohibit public or government-owned networks.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. That is the first I have heard of
that. Thank you, very helpful. I appreciate that.
Mr. Smith, and I don't want to keep everybody here, but Mr. Smith,
I saw your hand up, is that right?
Mr. Smith. Yes, this is William Smith, from the National Indian
Health Board. Yes, we should make sure that there are not reporting
barriers for these grant funds. We appreciate the change that Congress
made to the tribal broadband connection program during the tribal
consultation on establishment of the funds. Tribes had to remind the
NTIA not to restrict the type of technology that tribes can use to
establish connections.
In rural Alaska, we know that technology moves quickly. When
Federal agencies restrict the technology of landlines or fiber, it
limits our remote communities in Alaska where putting in the
infrastructure can be costly and prohibitive. Increasing tribal
involvement in planning can help improve some of this.
Like I said, you all know that Alaska is so big and everything else
that we can't get into places. We have three mountain ranges, a long
chain to follow. It is hard to access fiber.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Mr. Smith. Thank you.
Senator Cortez Masto. We have heard similarly from Senator
Murkowski as well.
Thank you, everyone. Mr. Chair, thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cortez Masto.
We will move on to Senator Murkowski, followed by Senator Cantwell.
Before we move on, I want to encourage all of the staffers who are
watching or monitoring this conversation to get their heads together
after all the notes are taken and the record is created to figure out
what are the action items, collectively, on a bipartisan basis, for
this Committee.
Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. I think
we are going to have a fair amount of follow-up here, but we have some
good folks who are part of the call to work with our staff. I
appreciate that.
Hallie, I wanted to ask you, I have detailed a little bit of the
challenges in Alaska. Chairman Smith has outlined them just now in the
response to his question, recognizing that for us, you really do have
to be somewhat technology neutral. We would all love to have fiber.
That is the gold standard. But I think we recognize that we have
challenges in being able to get that, not the least of which is the
extraordinary cost and the time involved.
What I would like to hear from you, and I would like others to be
thinking about responses as well, I noted that there are historic
amounts of Federal funding that are coming toward tribes around the
Country, what that means for us in a place like Alaska. But we also
have these Federal dollars that are coming to the State that are
separate from the tribal dollars. But I think there is a recognition
that a level of coordination is going to absolutely be key,
particularly to build out this infrastructure in areas where we really
don't have anything right now.
Can you speak to perhaps some of the recommendations that you would
share on how there can be enhanced coordination between the State, the
tribes and the ANCs as we are working to close this rural divide, this
digital divide in rural Alaska? I think for the others, it is also an
important thing to be focusing on, is how our tribes are coordinating
with other entities. Can you speak to that? Again, thank you for the
work that you have done on this thus far. It is a big, big task.
Ms. Bissett. Thank you, Senator Murkowski. I would like to start by
thanking everybody who is on this call, both the advocates that spend
time advocating for this historic amount of money, and the Senators
themselves who got this through.
NCAI itself I have heard has received over $8 billion in requests
for money. We know that the need in Indian Country is huge. I think I
want to spend just a little bit of time going over just the sheer size
and remoteness of Alaska. I won't spend a whole lot of time, I am not
going to write you a book. But I need you to understand that by far,
Alaska, by any measure, is the most challenging place to ensure
ubiquitous delivery of high-quality broadband services. It is true of
both the assessment of the broadband needs and in the closure of the
coverage gaps once those needs are identified.
Because of the status of the largest State of the United States, we
comprise over 600,000 square miles. That is more than the area of
Texas, California, and Montana combined. The challenge of extending
robust broadband infrastructure into every community is substantial.
Just to give you an idea, it is 2,261 miles wide at its broadest
point, which is roughly the distance between New York and Las Vegas,
and north and south we are 1,420 miles long-wide, roughly the distance
from Miami to Augusta, Maine.
So the majority of Alaska's population resides in just four
boroughs, and that is in kind of the south central, southeast areas,
Juneau, Anchorage, Matanuska Borough, and Fairbanks. But the
complexities really come in, not only with the geographically vast
distances that separate communities in Alaska, but with the land
ownership. A lot of the land is owned and operated by Federal agencies
such as the USDA Forest Service, the Department of Interior Bureau of
Land Management, the U.S. Department of Defense.
In addition, this vast area is also managed by State entities,
including the Alaska Department of Transportation, the Alaska
Department of Natural Resources, the Alaska Railroad Corporation. And
of course, we can't forget the private ownership thrown in, and thank
goodness for this as well, of right around 10 percent of the land that
is owned via simple title by the Alaska Native people, via the Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act.
So such complex and significant land ownership structure by the
government and by the State and by Alaska Native Corporations really
demands coordination. We are grateful for the work that was put in by
the Senators to make sure that States are creating these broadband
offices to coordinate with the Federal Government. One of the things
that we are hearing out there, to Senator Cortez Masto's question, is
the amount of time that it takes to get permits on Federal land. That
same problem exists in the States and certainly requires coordination
with private landowners as well. Coordination is going to be key to
deploying some of these funds.
The FCC right now, the way it gathers data, really doesn't show the
real need in Alaska. Because of the way they are gathering the data, it
will show things like, I think somebody had mentioned 98.8 percent of
the State has access to 25.3. Well, that is actually untrue. It is just
because of the way that they do census block areas that it comes
through that way. In fact, around 70 percent of Alaska Native villages,
233, 233 of our communities do not even have 25.3 service. That is
unserved, everybody, unserved, not underserved. Those are all Alaska
Native villages.
So the skewed results are going to continue. Luckily, we have,
according to the broadband report, we already went over that. But
fortunately, FCC is in the process of implementing the Broadband Data
Act, where they are going to get better access to better mapping and
reporting. But that in and of itself is going to stall the process to
get this money out the door. We are looking at 2022 to 2023 to even get
verification from the FCC on where the actual need is going to be.
But you are going to see that Alaska is going to be one of the
highest areas of need. So we are excited to look at the data a little
bit differently to really show the need. Just like the gentleman
mentioned before, the longer this goes on with absolutely no fiber and
no middle mile network into our villages, the more pronounced the
problem is going to be.
It is extremely challenging to deploy. We have mountaintops, we
have this vast area. Eighty percent of our State is not accessible by
road, so you are using airplanes, you are using boats. You have all
this mountainous terrain, you have permafrost, you have all kinds of
things going on, towers that are powered by diesel fuel.
So we continue to need help from the government in areas like
operational expenses, capital expenses. That is going to continue into
the near future. When it comes to middle mile connectivity or backhaul,
we only have a few critical areas to have that in. I can give you some
examples, but like I said, I didn't want to go on and on. I am happy to
answer questions about where our middle mile is.
But in terms of coordination, I think the Denali Commission is
going to be extremely important in coordinating with Federal agencies
and State agencies. We are looking forward to the State of Alaska
establishing a broadband office in order to get all of the data that we
are going to need in one central location to provide more transparency
around where this money is going. We are looking at things like, how
can we make permitting easier, and in terms of tribal relationships,
that couldn't be more important to someone like our organization.
So ANVCA, the State of Alaska, the Alaska Federation of Natives,
are going to continue to be working together over the next several
years to ensure that the tribes are at the table having a voice, and
hopefully having a portion of this that they can invest in. Because
long-term utility grade investments are really good for a Native
Corporation that is charged by Congress, by yourselves, for providing
for our people in perpetuity.
I have so much more to say, but I will leave it at that, because I
think I answered your question, Senator.
Senator Murkowski. You did. You have a lot going on there. I do
think this issue of how we coordinate really to maximize, when you talk
about the challenges of building this out in a State as vast as Alaska,
I think we recognize that as much as we can do jointly for mobilization
efforts, that is going to work to get better value for your dollar.
I do think we are going to be faced with an issue of workforce
capacity. I think we are going to be faced with some supply chain
issues. The last point I will share here, as you mentioned, the role
that the ANCs may play, perhaps some level of equity so that we are
really talking about ongoing sustainability here. I think that is
something that really builds this out from a legacy perspective.
So it is not just a construction job, it is not just building the
infrastructure, it is ongoing from there.
Mr. Chairman, I will turn it back to you. Thank you, Hallie.
The Chairman. Thank you, Vice Chair.
Senator Cantwell?
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for holding this
really important hearing on such a timely topic. I have really already
enjoyed listening to the witness. I think they have clearly outlined
the challenges we face in Indian Country, particularly the unique
situations of the States of Hawaii and Alaska, where really strong
middle mile infrastructure is needed.
I don't know if Carrie knows the answer to this question or not,
but your comments, I know Washington established a high-speed education
connectivity between Washington and Alaska. I think we did that in
2001. So I have always wondered why my colleague from Hawaii couldn't
get a similar situation as a ring infrastructure around Hawaii so that
they could use that for their educational connectivity.
So besides this issue you just brought up about making sure that
tribes basically aren't penalized by the law, what are some of the
other problems with establishing these high-speed broadband networks?
Then to our witness from Alaska, if Hallie could talk a little bit, it
is almost like Alaska is so unique in the context of the density is
within the villages. But we have to figure out a way to get the middle
mile built. Most of America, there is a lot of connectivity, but people
just don't want to go the last mile because it is not economically
beneficial to them. In Alaska, we almost need its own unique mapping
infrastructure. I want to know if you think any of the Federal dollars
allow for that.
I could ask Washington-oriented State questions, too. But I think I
have a pretty good handle on this, and as the Chair of the Commerce
Committee who has oversight over NTIA, I want to make sure that we are
getting this right. I care immensely about getting this right in Indian
Country in my State. But we have really, really unique problems in
Alaska and Hawaii that I want to make sure that this legislation is
used in the right way.
So if Carrie and Hallie could answer those, that would be great.
Ms. Billy. Yes, thank you. I also want to reiterate thanks to all
the Senators and yourself who worked so hard to make sure that Indian
Country was included in these bills. We really, really appreciate it,
because it is life-transforming.
Hawaii actually doesn't have the barriers, so they do have the
public networks. I think it is probably largely the cost in Hawaii.
But one of the overriding barriers, and I know this is difficult to
hear, but it is the lack of sufficient funding. There really is such a
tremendous need to get these systems in place.
But not only funding, the time to plan specifically. The tribal
colleges have been working through some grants from the National
Science Foundation for about two and a half years to try and address
the cyber infrastructure needs on tribal colleges. Going into the
pandemic, we had a lot of information. But there is still so much
planning that needs to be done. And I think as the questioning started,
in this cooperative way where you are involving the States, the tribes,
the counties, the municipalities, the institutions, and everyone who is
involved together.
So it does take time. Building out the system is not going to
happen as rapidly as people want it to. It really takes time to think
it out in a very thoughtful way that is going to be sustainable.
I think the other thing for us is that any legislation has to be
very, very explicit. We found even though we know that the need, the
amount of need for tribal colleges, and that Congress specifically
included them in the tribal broadband program, NTIA actually did not
include tribal colleges. So because of the way NTIA wrote the
regulations, tribal colleges, to address their IT needs, the tribal
higher education needs, were excluded from participation because the
RFP required internet speeds of less than 25.3.
So that is the household standard, not a standard for institutions
of higher education, or for doing telemedicine, or for conducting a
business. So we think to address issues like that, Congress has to be
much more explicit than it was in drafting the legislation to make sure
these agencies are really looking at things in a holistic kind of
nation-building way.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you. Hallie?
Ms. Bissett. Yes, thank you, Senator Cantwell. I will start by
saying I think nobody probably other than our delegation understands
the close connection between Alaska and Washington than yourself. We
need infrastructure, that middle mile infrastructure that connects
Alaska to the rest of the United States, it goes right into your State,
it goes into Oregon. It is old; it needs to be replaced. There are
basic infrastructure, even down here where all the people are, that
really needs some help.
When it comes to the rural areas that you are most concerned about
and that I am most concerned about, we have talked a lot about the
Office of Broadband Deployment should develop a durable digital equity
plan that thoroughly assesses needs across jurisdictions. The plan
could include gathering an analysis of speed test data, accurate
pricing data, the physical network gap information, along with
identification of locations to improve broadband equity. Likewise, the
office should identify local efforts to expand broadband access, like
workforce development things, like Senator Murkowski mentioned.
Digital inclusion and literacy program, with a focus on equity.
Similar efforts by libraries, chambers of commerce, colleges and
universities, like the woman that spoke before me, and other entities,
should be support whenever possible.
As technology rapidly evolves, it is important that the office
works to address broadband needs by increasing broadband equity. The
office should constantly monitor the digital divide, establish
guidelines for funding accountability to ensure the efficient and
expeditious disbursement of funds wherever they are needed most.
Transparent consumer rates are critical to achieving digital equity
and should be gathered by the State broadband office and perhaps even
by the FCC in its initial and ongoing environmental scan, data
gathering and granular mapping efforts. Likewise, subscribership or
adoption data with demographic breakouts would be an important
reporting metric for determining ongoing equity gaps and potential
solutions.
So digital equity should be a guiding principle of Office of
Broadband Deployment throughout all the data collection. So we made a
recommendation that deployment should prioritize the creation of a
durable digital equity plan that includes speed test comparisons,
pricing data and physical net network details, broken down by location.
That plan should indicate methods to improve broadband equity. That
will include partnership with Alaskans, with the private providers, and
certainly with the tribes.
And like I have already mentioned, the need of the tribal
communities far outweighs the money that has been available. We are
extremely grateful for this really giant step in the right direction.
But I think the ongoing effort is going to require a little bit more.
Thank you, Senator.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Smith.
Senator Smith. Thank you so much, Chair Schatz. I don't know if our
Vice Chair is still there. I really am appreciating this conversation.
I had to jump to something else, I am jumping back, so I hope you will
forgive me if I am duplicating any questions, to make sure I get a
chance to hear from all of you.
I am going to lay out my biases here, and then I want you to tell
me how this applies to the project you are working on, or if you think
it applies. This is based on my many conversations with Minnesota's
tribal nations, which is that sometimes it just really damned hard to
do business with the Federal Government, especially on broadband,
right? Because the Federal strategy on broadband is so diffuse. There
are so many different agencies, there are just a lot of different pots
of money. If you are a tribal nation or a tribal college and you are
trying to figure out how to tap into that, it is just really hard,
especially if you are a small enterprise, then you have even additional
challenges.
It just seems to me that this is an implementation issue that we
could work on and do so much better on, and we have an opportunity to
do that with an Administration that really wants to get this figured
out. I realize it is a really broad question.
But I am just wondering if anybody has any comment on it, who would
like to comment on that? What from an implementation perspective, in
addition to what Hallie just said, which I had a chance to listen to
around digital equity, which I think is so, so important? Anything else
that we should keep in mind around implementation? Yes, go ahead?
Mr. Heart. This is Manuel Heart. I agree with Hallie about equity.
We as tribal nations need access to the internet and broadband equity
for all 574 tribes. We have been talking a lot about Alaska and Hawaii.
But there are also tribes in the lower 48 that also need access to
this. Recently we had an issue with the FCC where they came in as a
commercial company onto tribal lands. I think it would be helpful to
raise the issue to the FCC regarding RDOF, the Rural Digital
Opportunity Funds, where companies would come in without notifying
tribes to access and put in these lines without even consulting the
tribes or asking the tribes to come onto tribal reservations.
That is an issue right now. We as tribes need to really take the
tribal lead and make it a tribal initiative, and make it tribally
driven.
Now, as to the importance of internet to emergency, fire, 911
calls, right now we have under the BIA, Bureau of Indian Affairs, it is
referred to somebody else to come in. So the timeline, time is of the
essence to respond to somebody's emergency. So 911, law enforcement,
fire emergencies, EMTs, all of this also comes into play, especially
for rural tribes that have to rely on the neighboring cities and towns
to access, to get some of this emergency response to come out right
away. That is another concern.
As was mentioned, education is one. Right now, with what is going
on with COVID and with online schooling, it has become a real issue
with what is happening right now. Currently, these small grants that we
applied for is not really meeting the needs overall, especially with
this new Omicron coming on, with the cases just tripling, doubling,
quadrupling, and then cases, positive cases.
Going back to your telehealth, it is something that we really need
to look at. We are limited with tribes sometimes on providing services.
We have to look at these different hospitals that are under IHS, but
these clinics are the ones that really need to addressed also.
So on behalf of the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, thank you.
Senator Smith. That is great. Go ahead, Matt.
Mr. Rantanen. Matthew Rantanen, NCAI. I think one of the biggest
descriptors right now is that we had a billion dollars flow through
NTIA, and application process. We only saw about half of the tribes
apply.
So in reference to your question, why did half of the tribes not
apply when there was a guaranteed half a million dollars on the table
for them that was earmarked, if they could responsibly put together an
application that identified the use of that $500,000, that is a huge
identifier that there is not enough capacity in the tribal space around
navigating these applications. The window was very, very short for
tribes to be able to apply. And coming out of COVID, going back into
COVID, coming out of COVID, we had tribes that never even got their
tribal councils together to be able to put together a tribal resolution
to support those applications.
Senator Smith. Right.
Mr. Rantanen. Some of the tribes didn't get enough of the
information about it, or didn't have access already, which we know they
don't have access to broadband in many cases. They did not have access
to even attend some of the webinars and the informational pieces to
learn how to apply.
So we missed half of the tribes in application process. Now $2
billion more is coming through that is directly aimed at tribes. It is
coming from the Infrastructure Bill, proposed to go through the same
pipeline. But is that pipeline functional? Because that pipeline is now
delayed until spring. That is another piece I wanted to address because
tribes are really struggling to get these applications in.
Then there is a timeline that you set forth from Congress to manage
these things. If that timeline has been extended, tribes are expecting
to know these things at that time. Now, they are thrown off on whether
they should apply for Rural Utility Services funding, whether they
should apply for some State funding. Because it now has put them out of
synch in the rest of their process.
So they are really struggling to do each application. But then when
it is thrown out of synch because the NTIA folks haven't gotten to the
approvals yet, they don't even know if they are going to get money. Do
they apply for the same money from a different organization? Do they
clog that pipeline?
Those are some of the issues that are around the space right now.
Thank you.
Senator Smith. I so appreciate that. I don't think it is even
really possible to understand how completely opaque this appears,
especially if you are a smaller nation, I am thinking of Red Lake, for
example, in northern Minnesota. Very remote, very small, in terms of
budget. They have incredible, creative, innovative leadership there.
So I don't know, Mr. Chair, how we can really, this is sort of
endemic to the whole process. I think it can't be underestimated what a
big issue it is. That is incredible, to think that only half of those
that were eligible actually even applied. Because there are probably a
whole range of reasons.
Yes, please, go ahead.
Mr. Haase. I just wanted to add a couple of comments and possibly a
solution. I am Walter Haase, I am with the Navajo Tribal Utility
Authority. We represent about 27,000 square miles, so we are not like
Alaska or Hawaii, but we are very large. We had a middle mile problem.
But I did want to talk about what Matthew said, on the NTIA grant
situation. Only half the tribes applied, and they applied for $5.9
billion. There was only $900 million available. So there is an ongoing
question that the NTIA has asked the tribes to answer by Friday and put
in their information by this Friday, whether the $2 billion that is
coming down the pipeline should be just applied to the $5.9 that is
outstanding, which would freeze out half the tribes who never applied,
or what should be the process. Further, there is a time situation,
because you go through the process, you have more time. I wanted to add
on to his comment.
But what I wanted to say, offer a solution for some folks, NTUA got
a grant from NTIA back from Obama. We finished in the three-year
timeline to install it in 2014. That was over 550 miles of backbone,
fiber optic backbone, 32 broadcast stations and towers. The reason the
nations did this is they created their own utility, because other
providers were only providing scarce utilities in certain areas.
Since that timeframe, we have been able to grow from 32 towers to
over 116 towers that we self-funded. We are still a tremendously long
way away from solving the problem. But what I am trying to come back to
is, the tribe took it upon themselves to create a non-for-profit entity
that teams up with co-ops and teams up with other tribes. We provide
back service to Hopi, believe it or not, our neighboring communities.
So what I am trying to say is, there is opportunities out there. We
need to create some public and private partnerships, possibly creating
some public entities, or not-for-profit, such as we are. And then going
out and working with others to get the expertise.
I know that is a long process, and in our case, we did not finish
everything we needed to finish. But we have made a tremendous progress
forward. Having that fiber backbone throughout the Navajo Nation, not
completely everywhere, now we just have to add extensions to it, gives
us an upper hand in solving the problem faster than other communities
that are further behind.
So I just wanted to offer that as, that was our experience as a
community. It may be applicable to other folks, and I would be more
than glad to talk to other folks offline. Thank you for the opportunity
to speak.
The Chairman. Let's do that. Senator Smith, anything else?
Senator Smith. If I could just say one other thing. We don't have
time to get into it, but I want to just plant it into your brains.
I am really interested in this issue of spectrum sovereignty and
how it might relate to solving some of the problems that we have. So I
know we don't have time to get into that now, Mr. Chair, but I am
really interested in how tribal sovereignty could extend, or should
extend, to that issue of spectrum, and how that might solve some of the
issues that tribes have with just ridiculous prices that you are faced
with.
I just want to put that out there.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Smith. I do want to dig into that.
I want to begin my questioning with Mr. Kealoha. Thank you for
everything you do in Hawaii, and thank you for participating in this
roundtable. I hope you are safe back home.
Could you do two things for us? First, maybe describe the context
in which broadband deployment is happening in the State of Hawaii, how
it differs from other places. And then specifically, talk a little bit
about the need for education related to technology literacy. It has
been touched upon by various panelists.
But this idea that, and Senator Murkowski said it exactly right,
the infrastructure is fine, but if it costs you $300 a month, then it
is of no use to you. The infrastructure is great, and if you have an
affordable rate, that is great. But you still have to know how to
install it and use it and maintain it.
So I want you to kind of help us understand specifically what you
are up to in the technology literacy space, but also generally how
Hawaii may differ from some of these tribal communities.
Mr. Kealoha. Thank you for the question, and also the opportunity
to participate. It is enlightening and very educational to hear from
fellow panelists in Indian Country. Mahalo to them for sharing.
As I was listening and taking notes, the question about funding and
coordination, as you said, the situation in Hawaii is pretty different
and unique. In Hawaii, we do have an office that is established within
our business and economic development office as part of the
administration that is called Hawaii Broadband and Digital Equity
Office. They are tasked with, its mission is to develop and implement
strategies and plans to aggressively increase broadband affordability
and penetration and competitive availability in the State. Also, to
promote and advocate and facilitate a plan that was created in 2020 to
deploy broadband in a strategic way.
That office, created by law in 2021, is largely attributable to
grassroots efforts by a number of private-public, non-profit actors,
agencies, in our State, in recognizing how much of an opportunity that
is unlocked, if broadband is available, affordable, and distributed
equitably across our various communities.
So when we talk about coordination and some of the monies that are
coming down, I think we are positioned uniquely, because this office
that was created by statute, born out of the efforts of a lot of
community members, and that work informs this office. So the question
now becomes, how do we continue to fund the efforts of this office.
There is question, going into this budget session, whether or not the
funding will be there for this office. I have to believe that with the
amount of resources from the Federal Government that is on its way to
Hawaii that our State legislators will recognize the need to properly
resource this office in order for it to do the work that it needs to do
to coordinate with our community based partners, but also with the
Department of Hawaiian Homelands, which is also receiving this
significant amount of money to be able to deploy broadband in our
various communities.
That is just the start. Coming back to the question of literacy,
our organization, Purple Mai'a Foundation, we are an educational non-
profit. So you can think of us as maybe the folks that come in when the
infrastructure and the capacity and the bandwidth is there. For us,
technology literacy is key in the work that we do in servicing and
working with our youth, with adults who are seeking changes in career.
So with any investment in the hard assets, there has to be a
definite investment in the people and the community aspect. That is
where the importance of technology literacy programs, as well as
educational programs, come in.
In our youth education programs, we teach our kids that learning
technology is like learning a language. To learn a language, you have
to have these basic literacy skills. So across our classes, it is
fundamental that the kids are learning to acquire these basic digital
literacy skills. That in turn enables them to create these wonderful
apps that tell their story, allows them to create these applications
that share restorative practices on aina, on the land that they are so
fond of.
Furthermore, our adult educational program, the importance of
literacy as a foundational piece to unlock the acquisition of higher
earning remote tech skills. We have a program that seeks to train
adults. It is funded through Federal resources, namely the Native
Hawaiian Education Program. That program, the focus is on training.
First, digital literacy, and then literacy with other technology
platforms in an effort to rapidly upscale folks and get them into
higher-paying remote jobs that w all hear about that are going on right
now.
That is the situation and how things are on the ground in Hawaii.
The Chairman. I have one last question for you, Mr. Kealoha. If you
ran the Department of Hawaiian Homelands, how would you spend those
Federal dollars?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Kealoha. I spent some time preparing, reading some of the
reports that they had prepared, and some of the funding asks. It seems
like a lot of it was in construction and deployment of some of the
assets, to fix some of the fundamental issues that are on the land.
There is also a workforce piece. I think that is important. I also
think that there is maybe a continuing or other educational piece that
is not just training construction workers to be able to deploy these
things.
But what comes after that, after the assets and the bandwidth is
there, we have to be able to take full advantage of the capacity that
is there right now. In my other work as a venture capitalist, we look
at ways that we can invest in companies. If you think about all the
opportunities or challenges there are, and economic opportunities that
come out as a result of solving those problems, I think indigenous
communities, Native Hawaiian communities are positioned ideally to
solve those problems. But first comes the implementation of these
assets and the training and the educational pieces that then lead to
economic opportunities, and what we are particularly interested in,
entrepreneurship.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
I am going to ask just one more question, but I am going to leave
it open to any of you to respond. We all know that the broadband maps
are garbage. They are really worse than having nothing, because if we
had nothing, we could use our intuition, right? If we had nothing, we
could make no assumptions about who is connected and not.
Instead, we have actual bad data which leads policy makers at the
legislative level and in the Administration of both parties to engage
in magical thinking about who has broadband connectivity and who
doesn't. It goes to the census block question, but really it is deeper
than that. It has to do with how the preparations of what to count
connectivity, sort of having an army of really well-educated
individuals who work as hard as they can to remove their common sense
when they are trying to analyze whether people have connectivity to the
internet.
I also sit on the Commerce Committee with our great Chair, Maria
Cantwell. This has been an issue on a bipartisan basis for almost a
decade now, maybe more. I am wondering what we can do together, what
can the FCC do, what can the Department of Interior do, to kind of wrap
our arms around this.
Mr. Rantanen, and then Ms. Bisset.
Mr. Rantanen. Thank you. Matthew Rantanen, NCAI. Yes, the mapping
is, like you said, it is worse than having no data at all, because we
are getting misinformation. The number one thing that can happen is
changing the way that 477 data is respected. So that is essentially the
carriers' marketing map that they are promoting to the FCC as coverage.
What needs to be reported is actual coverage, actual households
served, actual speeds, allocations, actual dollars spent for those
speeds. I know that the Consumer Reports and a collection of others are
working on that, collecting data, putting bills together and doing
aggregate of services across the United States to show some of those
situations.
But the FCC needs to use actual data, not projected marketing maps.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Ms. Bissett, followed by Mr. Haase, then I am going to have to wrap
it up and give it to Senator Murkowski for a closing statement.
Mr. Bissett. Thank you, Senator.
I think there are a couple of things I would just like to hit on
here. In terms of the mapping, we really believe that it is going to
take community level engagement to really get there. Luckily, in
Alaska, we did a lot of work in the mapping area. But you are right,
you can't rely on private entities to accurately report through the
pricing data that is out there.
So Alaska recommended that we create regional advisory community
boards at the municipal level or the city level or the tribal
government level to really provide that data that we really need, which
is the cost per household of getting the broadband.
On top of that, just one comment, sir, on Senator Smith's question
about spectrum. We are very appreciative of the 2.5 gigahertz spectrum,
but from what I have heard from everybody here in Alaska, the service
providers themselves don't actually need spectrum. So I would request,
dig in a little deeper in giving tribal entities and tribal governments
the opportunity to invest in the actual infrastructure itself, like the
fiber. Because that is a long-term asset, the cash flow is maybe not a
really sexy profit, but it is something that would make a meaningful
investment for tribal entities to actually own and operate and be a
part of. So thank you for that.
The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Haase?
Mr. Haase. The only thing I would like to add is when they do their
data collection, a lot of places in the Navajo Nation and others, you
get one bar of service, they count that as service rendered. It doesn't
work. You can't make a call, you can't hold anything. That should not
be counted as service rendered. And they should be required to give up
the spectrum unless they are going to make the spectrum usable for
people.
That is the only thing I wanted to add. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you. I think what I would ask from, I am not
sure if it is NCAI or who would be most appropriate, maybe you guys can
talk offline, is to reduce some of your specific complaints and
recommendations to writing. Then maybe we can respond to it on a
bipartisan basis, via letter to the FCC, in particular, and say, we
have heard these concerns from Indian Country.
By the way, I know this has been done before. But we are sort of at
a different moment, because we have a new FCC and maybe a more
receptive one.
Mr. Rantanen. Mr. Chairman, if I may?
The Chairman. Sure.
Mr. Rantanen. There is a rulemaking that allows tribal access to
spectrum. That is the Tribal Priority Window. It has been applied in FM
spectrum usage and it is still open today. It was applied at 2.5. Why
can't we get a tribal priority window any time spectrum moves at the
FCC, whether it goes to auction, whether it goes to public consumption,
whether it gets recalled because of misuse? Why can't the tribes get
access with a tribal priority window over their lands every time
spectrum moves? That would give the tools that tribes need to build
these networks out in some of their communities. Thank you.
The Chairman. Okay. That is very helpful.
We have, and again, this was not intended to be a hearing, so I
want to be a little more action oriented. So whether it is staff or
panelists or a member, I would encourage us all to turn everything we
have to talked to into something to do, rather than just, I am not
running a salon here where we are drinking beers and talking about what
we would do if we were in charge. We are in charge. So let's get some
stuff done together.
Vice Chair Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know that you and I
have a vote, well, all the members have a vote to get to. So we are
kind of time limited here. But I think we could spend a fair amount of
time discussing what these action items could be, and the merits for so
much that has been presented today. Thanks for the opportunity to do
this.
I am just struck, Mr. Rantanen mentioned what we have seen with the
number of applications to the tribal broadband program, the over-
subscription, six times over-subscribed is something that gets your
attention and makes you realize how important it is that we be moving
out and doing this smart and in a way that is actually going to deliver
the benefit that we are all seeking here.
But it is just a reminder that we have differences across our
tribes. So many of the tribes in Alaska are very small. We have some
extraordinary leaders, but the capacity is just limited.
So as he was outlining some of the issues there, in trying to
understand why about half of the tribes didn't submit applications,
trying to figure out whether or not there is some way to have a
navigator to help some of our smaller tribes just know what is out
there. In the health care system, we developed what we call patient
navigators, to just help those monitor ways is a pretty complicated
issue for most.
So it seems to me that really need to be, again, trying to figure
out now how we can compete against, one tribe against another for these
dollars, but view this from a perspective of, how are we all going to
derive benefit and gain.
So Hallie, you mentioned the regional cooperation. I really think
that we need to be thinking more broadly in terms of the consortium, in
terms of the collaborative effort. It goes back to my initial question
about, what do we need to be doing to provide for better coordination
with the State, with the other governing entities that are out there.
So we have a lot to be working on. I think our Committee has an
important role from an oversight perspective, certainly, but also from
the perspective of being able to help bring people together, to bring
some best practices to be shared, again, in a way that is not
competitive, but really works to build up all of Indian Country.
We have an unprecedented opportunity. We have a moment in time. But
just because we have tribal set-asides, and just because we have
funding that is specific to tribal broadband, we shouldn't believe that
there isn't a broader competition out there, again, whether it is
supply chain or expertise in the workforce. We are all angling for it
at the same time.
So we need to be working together. I think these conversations can
help facilitate that. So I am looking forward to a lot more of this.
The Chairman. Thank you, everybody for participating. I thank the
staff and the members and the panelists. This was really constructive.
Let this be the continuation of a conversation about how we implement.
Because at this point, I think strategy is mostly about execution.
Thanks, everybody.
Senator Murkowski. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thanks, everyone.
[Whereupon, at 3:46 p.m., the roundtable was concluded.]
Attachment
Prepared Statement of the Ute Indian Tribe
Thank you, Chairman Schatz, Vice-Chairwoman Murkowski, and
distinguished members of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, for
the opportunity to submit comments for the Roundtable Discussion held
on January 16, 2022, entitled ``Closing the Digital Divide in Native
Communities through Infrastructure Investment.'' We appreciate the
Committee's attention to this issue and ask that the Committee continue
to pursue legislation that supports broadband services for large land
base tribes.
The Ute Indian Tribe (Tribe) is a large land base tribe. Our Uintah
and Ouray Reservation (Reservation) encompasses about 4.5 million
acres, roughly the size of New Jersey, making it the second-largest
reservation in the United States. We have over 3,000 members. The
majority of our members live on our Reservation in northeastern Utah.
As a large land base tribe, many of our communities are in rural
and isolated areas. Access to affordable and reliable broadband service
is critical in providing governmental services, educational and
economic opportunities, and even lifesaving healthcare. The ongoing
COVID-19 pandemic has further highlighted the need for broadband and
exposed the digital divide we face.
Digital Divide for Large Land Base Tribes
Lack of broadband access has been a persistent issue for Indian
tribes over the past 30 years since the Internet became essential for
governments, businesses, education, and healthcare. The lack of
broadband access for Indian tribes did not become a priority for the
federal government until about ten years ago, in 2010, when it created
the Office of Native American Policy (ONAP) within the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC). ONAP was created to address the
inadequate broadband access available on tribal lands.
Ten years after ONAP was created, in April 2020, the FCC reported
that only 46 percent of households in rural tribal areas have broadband
access, while 92 percent of non-Indian households have access. This
means that more than twice as many non-Indian households have broadband
access. These statistics show that a majority of tribal households in
rural areas still lack access to opportunities and basic services.
Closing the digital divide is needed as we work to govern and provide
opportunities to our communities and members across our large
Reservation.
The impacts of the digital divide and disparities we face became
even worse when the COVID-19 pandemic forced us to shut down our
offices, schools, and businesses to protect our members and employees.
Our members stayed at home for their safety but were isolated without
access to broadband service. Later, broadband would become even more
important as we all worked to reopen and became reliant on connecting
and conducting business through the Internet.
It was not until December 2020 that Congress would finally provide
some of the funding needed to begin addressing the digital divide that
we face. Some broadband funding was provided earlier in 2020 in the
CARES Act, but this funding was not directly available to tribes or was
limited to specific purposes. It was not until the FY21 Consolidated
Appropriations Act was passed in December 2020 that Congress provided
$1 billion in funding for tribal broadband. It took until June 2021
before the availability of this funding was announced. This funding is
badly needed but is too late to address the isolation and conditions we
faced before there were vaccines and treatments to address COVID-19.
In addition, while we work to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic,
obtaining funding for this critical infrastructure has been subject to
delays. Applications were originally due on September 1, 2021. At that
time, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration
(NTIA) planned to distribute all of the funding by November 29, 2021.
However, as of February 4, 2022, only eight applications have been
processed and funded. At this rate, with about 300 applications
pending, it will take the NTIA another six years to distribute this
funding.
NTIA estimates that their review process will be completed by late
spring of 2022. NTIA must keep to this schedule and distribute the
funding as quickly as possible so that tribes can begin to implement
the funding. We need dedicated staff to expedite, review, and approve
these critical tribal broadband infrastructure applications.
Finally, the funding available is far less than what is needed. The
Ute Indian Tribe applied for a grant through the NTIA Tribal Broadband
Connectivity Program, but NTIA has been overwhelmed by applications for
funding. In total, Indian tribes have submitted applications for about
$5.84 billion in funding, but NTIA has only $970 million available for
tribes.
This is less than 20 percent of the funding needed by tribes to
address the digital divide. Even in response to the COVID-19 pandemic,
the extreme and chronic underfunding of tribal programs continues. With
this funding, 80 percent of tribal broadband needs will go unfunded.
The United States has a government-to-government treaty and trust
responsibility to fulfill these important needs.
Tribal Spectrum Licenses
We have also faced barriers in implementing the Tribal Broadband
Spectrum Licenses provided by the FCC. In February 2020, the FCC
created the Rural Tribal Priority Window to provide specific broadband
spectrum licenses to Indian tribes. The Ute Indian Tribe obtained a 2.5
GHz band spectrum license during the priority window in October 2020.
After obtaining this spectrum license, the Tribe quickly partnered with
a private, majority Native American and women-owned business to provide
engineering, design, installation, commissioning, and maintenance for
our broadband infrastructure.
With the 2.5 GHz band spectrum license, we are working to deploy
networks on our Reservation to support wireless technology services
such as cellular phones, precision agriculture, cloud storage, and
wireless Internet. Aside from its commercial uses, the 2.5 GHz band
spectrum license can be used for educational, public health, and
governmental purposes, as well as household use. The Tribe's new
license could be used to broadcast educational programs, utilize
telemedicine applications, and improve emergency response services.
However, we face unique barriers to implementing our 2.5 GHz band
spectrum license. Barriers include jurisdictional issues, lack of
available broadband infrastructure, and ``last-mile'' connectivity
issues. Our projects are also subject to federal regulations and
environmental reviews that constrain and limit our attempts to expand
broadband infrastructure. For these and other issues, we face
difficulties accessing capital and obtaining private partners for the
design, engineering, and development of broadband infrastructure. On
our large Reservation, we have encountered all of these issues.
We also have to continuously push back against private companies
like STRATA and related companies who do not obtain necessary rights-
of-way across tribal jurisdiction or consider cultural resources in
their own broadband build-outs within our Reservation. Infrastructure
development in remote and rural tribal communities like ours is often
more complex and expensive.
Working in this environment, we need tribal-specific rules that
address our unique issues. For example, under the current FCC
regulations for the 2.5 GHz band spectrum license, the Tribe must
provide service coverage to at least 50 percent of the Tribe's
Reservation population within two years and coverage to at least 80
percent within five years. Lack of available infrastructure,
jurisdictional issues, and monopolies in the private market will make
it difficult for us to meet these deadlines. Tribes need relaxed
timelines, access to planning funds, and additional funding guarantees
to execute plans moving forward, and dedicated funds to build-out
infrastructure.
Conclusion
The broadband funding provided by Congress fulfills an important
federal obligation to help Indian tribes obtain the same broadband
connectivity used across the United States to provide government
services, education, healthcare, and economic opportunities. However,
much more is needed. The digital divide has been growing for decades,
and tribes face unique barriers in implementing the limited funding
available.
In addition to funding that truly meets the need in Indian Country,
we need streamlined and efficient programs and regulations to ensure
that we are able to implement the funding provided. We also need rules
and programs that recognize and support the huge divide that we are
working on crossing. This is even more important for large land base
tribes like the Ute Indian Tribe.
Thank you for your leadership on broadband infrastructure issues
impacting Indian tribes. We look forward to working with the Committee,
Congress, and federal agencies to advance tribal broadband
infrastructure.
[all]
File and source
- File
- CHRG_chrg-117shrg49821_chrg-117shrg49821.htm
- Size
- 504,040 bytes
- SHA-256
- 636618df41f5bb43d32aa556fb7ab7deab99c668a367540db81029e8955cc932
- Original
- No public link identified.