Oversight Hearing on: “Making Federal Economic Development Programs Work in Indian Country”

[Gavel sounds.] Good afternoon, everyone. The Subcommittee on Indian and Insular Affairs will come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare recess of the subcommittee at any time. The subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony for an oversight hearing entitled, "Making Federal Economic Development Programs Work in Indian Country." Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at hearings are limited to the chairman and the ranking minority member. I therefore ask unanimous consent that all other members' opening statements be made part of the hearing record if they are submitted in accordance with Committee Rule 3(o). Without objection, so ordered. I ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman from Wyoming, Ms. Hageman, the gentleman from Alaska, Mr. Begich, the gentlewoman from Utah, Ms. Maloy, and the gentleman from Montana, Mr. Downing, be allowed to sit and participate in today's hearing. Without objection, so ordered. I will now recognize myself for an opening statement. Good afternoon again, everyone. Today, the subcommittee meets to examine whether federal economic development programs are actually working as Congress intended in Indian country. I want to thank each of our witnesses for being here today and for taking the time to share their expertise with the committee. The federal government administers a wide range of economic development authorities. These programs span multiple departments across multiple agencies and operate under different statutes and regulations, and they reflect decades of well-intentioned congressional activity. Taken together, they represent a substantial federal footprint. Yet despite this breadth of activity, tribes and tribally affiliated businesses continue to report persistent barriers to accessing capital, launching enterprises, and executing development projects on tribal lands. The problem is not a lack of federal involvement; rather, it is the way that involvement is structured and administered. Tribes must navigate a fragmented federal system, one that requires duplicative applications, inconsistent standards, overlapping reviews, and prolonged approval timelines. Programs that may be defensible in isolation often become burdensome in practice, particularly for smaller and more rural tribes. The result is a system that is difficult to use, slow to engage, and misaligned with how economic development actually occurs on the ground. Tribal governments are asking for clarity and for the ability to exercise their own judgment over economic decisions affecting their communities. In other words, they are asking for federal policy to better support tribal self-determination. Today's witnesses are well-positioned to help the subcommittee understand how the system operates in practice. Chairwoman Hope Silvas of the Shivwits Band of Paiutes brings the perspective of a tribal leader working directly to advance economic opportunities for her community. Her testimony will help ground this discussion in the practical realities that tribes face when federal processes delay or constrain development, even when projects are modest in scale and clearly aligned with local priorities. Chairman Rodney Butler, appearing on behalf of the Native American Finance Officers Association, represents tribal finance officials who work daily with federal programs, lenders, and investors. NAFOA's experience highlights how regulatory uncertainty, delayed guidance, and fragmented oversight can undermine financing and stall projects that are otherwise viable projects. We will also hear from Mr. Haven Harris of the Native American Contractors Association and Mr. Watchman of the National Center for American Indian Enterprise Development. These organizations work closely with Native entrepreneurs and contractors seeking to participate in federal contracting, lending, and in business development programs. Federal contracting is an economic powerhouse for tribes, and protecting program integrity is essential to making these programs work as intended. This hearing asks a straightforward oversight question: Are existing authorities actually advancing economic activity, or are they unintentionally creating procedural bottlenecks that slow progress and discourage investment? The committee has a responsibility to ensure that federal Indian policy supports rather than constrains tribal decision-making. The testimony today will inform this subcommittee's oversight of whether agencies are executing the law as written and where changes may be needed to make these programs work as intended. I appreciate our witnesses' willingness to engage in that discussion today. Your perspective will help inform this committee's work and guide future conversations about economic development that gives Indian country the opportunity to flourish. With that, I yield back. And at this time, the chair now recognizes the ranking minority member for any statement.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our witnesses for being here. I feel like I'm just with a bunch of old friends, but colleagues with whom we have worked on lots of projects together, who we have worked to make sure that we bring economic prosperity to Indian country. Because we need to start with the premise that economic sovereignty is key to tribal sovereignty. And if we do not create the conditions for tribes to prosper wherever they might be—so whether they have access to gaming resources, to natural resources, to tourism, to manufacturing—we need to make sure that wherever tribes are located within our amazing United States of America, that they have the tools to prosper. And that is what our job is here in Congress, is to make sure that we give them those tools and that we remove the barriers to that prosperity, including by speeding up approvals for infrastructure projects, because you cannot build a business if you don't have the clean water and the electricity to that business. We also know that tribes have difficulty accessing existing federal programs. Tribes in my district are always raising with me the difficulty of applying for federal funding when they might not have the resources to complete that engineering report, when they might not have the matching funds that are required on too many of our federal programs. So I really do look forward to Chairwoman Silvas's testimony about how we can make sure federal programs actually work for tribes. We'll also hear about the Small Business Administration's 8(a) program, which has been a vital economic tool for tribes to grow their economies. This committee is very bipartisan in our work, and for that I am always grateful. I am concerned, however, on the Trump administration's attacks on 8(a), because when they attack tribal participation in the 8(a) program, it shows they do not understand how it works. When they say we are attacking tribal participation because or in the name of an attack on diversity, equity, and inclusion—how you can be against equity, I don't know—they don't understand that tribes are governments, and they do not deserve to be attacked on the premise of DEI. And Native CDFIs are so essential to the work that tribes do. So I also want to raise my concern about the Trump administration's attack on renewable energy development. Tribes face over six times more electrical outages and almost 30 percent higher energy costs compared to the national average. That means thousands in Indian country live without electricity, and Mr. Watchman knows too well what that's like in the Navajo Nation. But we now have an administration that wants to cut off renewable energy access. In July 2025, the Department of Interior released new departmental review procedures on wind and solar projects that would make it more difficult to pursue clean energy projects. For those tribes that don't have oil and gas and other natural resources that they can develop, they actually have a lot of wind and solar potential, so we would not want to cut off that access to our energy independence, as it's said. We must use all of our energy resources. I'm also going to say that we know CDFIs make a lot of difference. Mr. Watchman and I have worked on building CDFIs and using CDFIs and doing New Markets Tax Credits in Indian country. Sadly, Trump tried to lay off all the staff of our CDFI twice. Not once, but twice. But you know what happened is across the country, people rose up and expressed their concern on a bipartisan basis. I am grateful for my colleagues who also raised that issue. And when Trump tried to eliminate the CDFI in their funding package, on a bipartisan basis, we said no, this is an important program, and we fully funded the CDFI. So that shows how when we all work together, we can make sure that we keep the resources that tribes have flowing to Indian country. And it also comes back to: we need that workforce. I know Mr. Watchman will testify about the importance of having a federal workforce so that they can respond to the projects that are submitted. You need boots on the ground, and you actually need people sitting on those desks to make those approvals. So I look forward to listening to your ideas, to hearing from you on what is working and not working on the ground in Indian country so that we can create that economic sovereignty. And with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.

The gentlewoman yields. At this time, the chair now recognizes the ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman from California, Mr. Huffman, for his opening statement. Mr. Huffman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So before I turn to the subject of today's hearing, I do want to emphasize we're not having this conversation in a vacuum. We are living through an administration that punishes its perceived enemies—that includes tribal nations—treats them with contempt, and it is actively dismantling the programs that serve Americans, including those in Indian country right now. Last month, Republicans upheld a veto on a tribal bill that not a single member of Congress objected to. Everybody supported it. There were no policy disagreements, no controversy. Yet the president vetoed that bill, not because of substance, but because of his ego and his pettiness and political vengeance. He made that all clear himself. And yet every Republican on this subcommittee, except you, Mr. Chairman—you did the right thing—but everyone else on this subcommittee rolled over, turned their backs on tribal sovereignty, and went along with that veto. In that moment, they turned the Congress into Trump's version of the Russian Duma, with Republicans in Congress acting like finger puppets that simply do whatever the wannabe dictator tells them to do, even if it's reversing a vote they cast a few weeks earlier on a tribal bill. We are seeing, as we speak, ICE racially profile and detain tribal citizens across this country. Tribal governments are telling their citizens to carry tribal IDs, but ICE agents are refusing to respect them. And then a Republican member of this subcommittee actually shrugged it off and said there will be mistakes. Well, this is not a mistake. Tell that to the American citizens who are being grabbed off the streets, dragged into unmarked vehicles by masked secret police agents, held for days or weeks while their family has no idea where they are. It's not a mistake. How are people supposed to participate in their economies? We're talking about economic development today. How does that happen? How do they run their businesses, go to work, when they face the threat of being snatched off the street by masked federal agents and disappeared to who knows where because of how they look? Indigenous communities have already endured genocide, forced removal and assimilation, systematic theft of their lands by the federal government. These wounds have not healed, and tribal nations continue to face broken promises from a government that owes them far more than it has ever delivered. Their families have lived on these lands long before this committee came into existence. And I would like to think that promoting economic development in Indian country is a shared priority. With you, Mr. Chairman, I think it is. But given the majority's broader silence and capitulation into a Duma in the face of this administration's actions, I am skeptical. Tribes have told us repeatedly that underfunded and understaffed agencies are holding their communities back. Under President Biden, we created tools like the Access to Capital Clearinghouse to help tribal nations, individuals, and businesses find federal funding opportunities in one place. And then Trump came in and rescinded it. According to his administration, helping tribes find this federal funding was, quote, "harmful." That tells you everything you need to know about where their priorities lie. From day one, this administration has worked to gut federal funding, to slash the federal workforce. They've unjustly swept tribal nations and businesses into their attacks on DEI. The National Center for American Indian Enterprise Development, one of our witnesses today, released an assessment in last May, and their findings are clear: workforce reductions and funding freezes slow administrative responses and disrupt critical tribal programs and services. We've seen attacks on the CDFI fund. We've seen efforts to terminate staff during the Republican shutdown, the longest shutdown in history, followed right after by Trump's last shutdown. Concerns around SBA's 8(a) program continue, issues that I'm sure our witnesses will speak to today. And as this committee knows all too well, Republicans have repeatedly tried to block clean energy, creating even more barriers for tribes who want to invest in wind and solar. Our witnesses today include the National Center, NCA, and NAFOA, all of whom have endorsed a policy brief on tribal economic development priorities for the 119th Congress. That brief calls for amending the NATIVE Act, a bill led by Representative Case that Republicans have stalled, and passing a clean Carcieri fix that Chairman Westerman continues to block despite the overwhelming support from Indian country. So look, I want to have a productive conversation. I want to start doing some actual work to walk the walk on these things we say we care about. But in light of everything I've just outlined and everything this administration is doing in real time, I'm deeply skeptical. I yield back.

The gentleman yields. At this time, the chair would like to introduce the witnesses for our panel. And first, I would like to recognize Ms. Maloy from Utah for 30 seconds to introduce the witness from her district. Ms. Maloy.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Hope Silvas is a member of the Shivwits Band of Paiute Indians in Southern Utah, and they're one of the five bands that make up the Paiute Indian Tribes of Utah. She's currently serving as the acting chairwoman of the Shivwits Band of Paiutes, but she also serves as the Shivwits Band's representative to the Paiute Indian Tribes of Utah Tribal Council. She has been elected multiple times by her community to leadership roles, including chairwoman, vice chairwoman, and council member, and provides leadership in tribal governance and economic development. She's been doing that for the past decade and a half. She resides on the Shivwits Reservation and represents the band in government-to-government consultation with federal, state, and local officials on issues affecting tribal sovereignty, governance, and economic development. She's a strong voice for her people, and the band is growing, and she's making sure that they are not marginalized and not forgotten in an area that has an otherwise really strong economy. She's championed the need for increased opportunities for her people in education, in the economy, and in the Southern Utah community. And the acting chairwoman is aptly named for the role she's playing. She's working to ensure that the Shivwits Band and the Paiute Indian Tribes of Utah have hope for the future, and I am glad she's here. Welcome, Chairwoman Silvas. Acting Chairwoman Silvas.

Thank you, Representative Maloy, and indeed welcome, Chairwoman Silvas. It's good to have you with us. Next, it's my pleasure to introduce the Honorable Rodney Butler, chairman of the board of directors of the Native American Finance Officers Association here in Washington, D.C. Welcome, Mr. Butler. Next to Mr. Butler is Mr. Derrick Watchman, chairman of the board of directors of the National Center for American Indian Enterprise Development in Mesa, Arizona. Welcome, Mr. Watchman. The chair now recognizes Mr. Begich for 30 seconds to introduce the witness from his district. Mr. Begich.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is my privilege to welcome a fellow Alaskan to the subcommittee today. Haven Harris is a tribally enrolled member of the Nome Eskimo Community and a shareholder of both Sitnasuak Native Corporation and Bering Straits Native Corporation. Born and raised in Nome, he now serves as senior vice president of growth and strategy at Bering Straits Native Corporation. Mr. Harris also serves as co-chair of the Native American Contractors Association, representing over 45 Native-owned firms that employ tens of thousands of workers across all 50 states. He brings firsthand experience with the federal contracting programs we're examining today, programs that have generated over a billion dollars annually in community benefits for Alaska Native shareholders, funding scholarships, healthcare, elder support, and economic development in some of our most remote and rural communities. I'm grateful that he's here to share Alaska's perspective, and I look forward to his testimony. Thank you, Haven, for making the long journey to Washington. And I yield back.

The gentleman yields. Indeed welcome, Mr. Harris. It's great to have you with us as well. Now let me remind each of our witnesses that under committee rules, you are to limit your oral statements to five minutes, please, but that your entire written statement will appear in the hearing record. To begin your testimony, there should be a little talk button in front of you. You can press that. And we do use timing lights. When you begin, the light will turn green. That means go. When you have one minute left, the light will turn yellow. And at the end of five minutes, the light will turn red, and I ask when that happens that you please wrap up your opening statement, or if you're being asked a question, if you wrap up your answer to that question as quickly as possible. And I will also allow each of our witnesses on the panel to testify before member questioning. And with that, the chair now recognizes Chairwoman Silvas for five minutes. Chairwoman Silvas.

Good afternoon, Chairman Hurd and members of the subcommittee and Ranking Member Leger Fernandez. My name is Hope Silvas, and I have the honor to serve as acting chairwoman for the Shivwits Band of Paiutes. For the record, I have submitted a more written detailed testimony on my tribe's history and experience with federal economic development programs. Today, I will focus my spoken remarks on the highlights of that written testimony. Thank you for the opportunity to share our experiences with you today. The Shivwits Band is a small federally recognized tribe located within Southwestern Utah. Unlike many tribes across Indian country, we have long pursued economic development strategies that align with our size, location, and capacity. Rather than rely upon infeasible federal programming to meet our economic development needs, the Shivwits Band has focused our efforts on things within our control, such as our lands and contracting with outside investment. This has resulted in smaller projects, which include a tribal administrative office, infrastructure development, and small-scale commercial enterprises, and a land-based economic uses consistent with our cultural values. As a small tribe with limited staff and resources, we must be strategic and cautious in our economic decisions. In theory, federal economic development programs are meant to support exactly this type of tribal growth. However, in practice, many of these programs have been difficult for the Shivwits Band to access. Therefore, today I am focused on how federal economic development programs often fail to reach tribes like the Shivwits Band, why many well-intentioned programs are inaccessible in practice, and how these shortcomings have directly impacted our economic development efforts, and how the Shivwits Band has sought congressional action to address barriers to development. First, one of the most significant barriers that we face is lack of awareness that certain federal economic development programs exist. Many programs are housed across multiple federal agencies, each with its own eligibility criteria and application processes. Information about these programs are often released through channels that do not reach small tribes, particularly those with limited administrative capacity. In several instances, due to a lack of coordinated outreach and communication, we have become aware of federal programs only after application deadlines have passed. When tribes are unaware of programs, we cannot plan projects, build partnerships in advance, or align our internal priorities with federal funding opportunities. Second, even when we are aware of federal programs, many are unsuitable for the Shivwits Band as they are not designed with small or rural tribes in mind. Common challenges to access include eligibility requirements that favor large-scale projects, unrealistic match funding requirements, scoring criteria that reward prior federal grant success, and timelines that do not account for tribal decision-making processes or capacity constraints. As a result, tribes like the Shivwits Band are often disadvantaged or discouraged from applying for such programs altogether. Third, although federal programs have occasionally supported our infrastructure, the Shivwits Band has pursued economic development largely through our own resources, partnerships, and incremental growth. In some cases, federal programs were not flexible enough to accommodate the small-scale nature of our projects. In other cases, the administrative burden of compliance outweighed potential benefits of the funding. This has led us to rely more heavily on internal planning and conservative development approaches. Even when federal programs were theoretically intended to support tribal economic growth, bureaucratic issues and delays have also led the Shivwits Band to pursue its own legislation, the Shivwits Band of Paiutes Jurisdictional Clarity Act, in order to strengthen our economic development efforts by removing jurisdictional hurdles to our economic development and placing us on a level playing field by permitting us to engage in leases of terms comparable to those available to non-Indian entities. Fourth, another major obstacle is the administrative burden of federal programming. For small tribes, the same staff members are often responsible for application, governance, compliance, grant management, and community service, all on top of their regular job responsibilities. The Shivwits Band wants federal economic development programs to succeed for all tribes, not just the large and most powerful, so that we can one day come before this subcommittee and talk about our successes with the aid of federal programs. For federal programs to truly work in Indian country, they must be accessible, transparent, and designed with the diversity of tribal nations in mind. Economic development is a cornerstone of tribal self-determination. When federal programs fail to reach tribes like the Shivwits Band, these programs miss the opportunity to strengthen tribal governments, improve community well-being, and fulfill the federal trust responsibility. For these reasons, the Shivwits Band seeks the legislative fix afforded by the Shivwits Band of Paiutes Jurisdictional Clarity Act to further our self-determination and independence. Thank you again for the opportunity to share the Shivwits Band's experience, and I am happy to answer any questions you may have.

Perfect timing. Thank you, Chairwoman Silvas, for that testimony. The chair now recognizes Chairman Butler for five minutes. Chairman Butler.

Aweeqsee. Greetings, Chairman Hurd, Ranking Member Leger Fernandez, and members of the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Indian and Insular Affairs. Nutasee, Chairman Rodney Butler from the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe, and I am here today as the president of NAFOA, the Native American Finance Officers Association. With over 185 member tribes, NAFOA represents the diversity of Indian country's economic landscape, including gaming, energy, agriculture, federal contracting, and so much more. Since 2021, we have worked closely with the Federal Accountability Office to better understand the challenges tribes face when accessing federal economic development and capital access programs. In consultation with our member tribes, we provided detailed feedback outlining key access barriers and recommended practical solutions. The GAO's 2024 Barriers to Access to Federal Assistance report incorporated many of NAFOA's observations, including concerns about limited agency experience, delayed or unclear guidance, administrative burdens, poor communication, and audit challenges. Building on the identification of these recurring issues, NAFOA developed a set of recommendations to improve tribal access to federal economic development programs. These included designing programs with tribes in mind, reducing administrative burdens, providing comprehensive staff training, improving communication and timeline management, providing technical assistance and capacity building, creating clear information resources, and collecting and utilizing tribal-specific data. The gap in data collection deserves special attention because it makes it difficult for tribes and Congress to evaluate whether programs are actually working and what factors are driving their results. The GAO highlighted this issue in its 2022 report analyzing tribal economic development. They examined more than $930 million in tribal-specific programs in addition to 14 broader programs and found that the total assistance provided to tribal entities was unknown because agencies did not analyze data to estimate it. According to the GAO, if federal agencies began estimating and reporting these obligations to tribal communities, it would give federal agencies and decision-makers such as Congress a clearer picture of the impact of these programs and where additional support might be needed. Building successful programs also includes meaningful tribal engagement and consultation. A powerful example of how to do this effectively can be found in the Department of Treasury's Office of Tribal and Native Affairs and its partnership with the Treasury Tribal Advisory Committee, known as TTAC. Through the TTAC, we have worked closely with the administration to address fundamental challenges such as delayed guidance and overreaching regulations that have long created uncertainty and stifled tribal investment. This collaborative effort recently achieved two significant milestones, in one case decades in the making, with the release of new rules and guidance resolving long-standing issues related to the general welfare exclusion and tribally chartered corporations. The effort between Treasury, OTNA, and TTAC exemplifies how federal agencies can conduct meaningful consultation that both advances policy goals and respects inherent sovereignty of tribal nations. From a legislative perspective, many of the economic development challenges facing tribal nations stem from lack of parity between tribal governments and their state and local counterparts. Congress can correct this disparity and fulfill its federal trust and treaty obligations by advancing the Tribal Tax and Investment Reform Act, introduced last Congress by Congresswoman Moore and Congressman Schweikert as H.R. 8318. This critical legislation addresses long-standing inequities by treating tribal governments the same as states for key tax purposes, including excise taxes, bond issuance, pension plans, general welfare benefits, and charitable organizations. Ending the discriminatory treatment of tribal governments by granting them full parity with state and local governments in accessing tax-exempt bond financing will enhance job creation, generate sorely needed revenue for social services, stimulate infrastructure and business development on tribal lands, and strengthen and diversify tribal economies. NAFOA and all of Indian country are eager for the reintroduction of H.R. 8318 in the House this Congress. In conclusion, federal programs and tax policy are vital tools for closing historic economic gaps in Indian country. But they only succeed when tribes can access them without facing the legacy of regulatory neglect. NAFOA remains committed to working with Congress and the administration to ensure that tribes receive clear and timely regulatory guidance, that federal coordination eases the burden on applicants, that tax policy empowers tribal economies, and that tribal finance professionals can deploy resources strategically. When federal support and policy are aligned with tribal sovereignty, we don't just foster sustainable economies, we build thriving, self-determined communities that uplift entire regions and contribute to the prosperity of this country as a whole. Kutputush, thank you for your time today.

Oops, sorry. Yá'át'ééh, hello. Chairman Hurd, Ranking Member Leger Fernandez, members of the subcommittee. I am Derrick Watchman, member of the Navajo Nation, and I'm also chairman of the board for the National Center for American Indian Enterprise Development, and we're based in Mesa, Arizona. Thank you for inviting us to share our views on this central topic that's so very important. Ironically, I testified before this subcommittee eight years ago on two bills to improve several of these programs. Though enacted, some of the improvements still haven't happened, a theme that you'll hear in my testimony today. Since 1969, the National Center has been a driving national force dedicated to American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian economies and economic development. We advance Native entrepreneurs and businesses through training, programming, business, and procurement technical assistance. We've worked with most tribes and assisted thousands of Native-owned businesses. Last year alone, we served over 3,000 clients who earned over $855 million in contract awards. Next month, we are hosting our 40th annual Reservation Economic Summit, RES for short. At this conference annually, this coming we expect 5,000 Native businesses, and this is the largest economic development gathering in Indian Country. As we deploy our services to support federal grants and cooperative agreements, we've learned firsthand how to make federal economic development programs work in Indian Country. Congress authorized these programs with worthy aspirations, but in many cases, agencies are complicated in their deployment and effectiveness. Federal funding rarely is sufficient in supporting economic growth, and arbitrary cuts have also created challenges to tribal programs. However, these programs can be strengthened with legislative fixes and departments fulfilling their statutory requirements. For example, in 2018, I testified for the Indian Economic Enhancement Act of 2020, a catch-all bill with provisions designed to address administrative inertia and strengthen key programs for four federal agencies. This included the Office of Native American Business Development, originally codified in 2000 but was never fully established. Even today, this office lies dormant with no director, so legislative changes are needed. Fortunately, Congress's work in Indian Country policy generally proceeds with bipartisanship, as we talked about earlier. The policies are outlined in my testimony, but I'll talk about a few. The National Center welcomes and would like to work on a new catch-all bill to improve programs, including the FIRST NATIVE Act. We urge the subcommittee to get answers from the Interior about the status of this NATIVE Act and how the grants and cooperative agreements are intended to bolster tourism but are not working. There seems to be a pause on this program. Any NATIVE Act, as we hope will happen, should include making sure that there's specific robust funding to fund the programs identified in the NATIVE Act. Number two. Explicit eligibility requirements on which tribal organizations actually can deploy this program. Like ours, we have a cooperative agreement with the Department of Interior, but the program is on pause. Second, the Indian Incubator Program. We support the continuation and the prompt reauthorization of this program and obviously bring up to level funding so that BIA can seek additional applicants. This program has been very beneficial in Indian Country. Third, we also urge the subcommittee with its oversight to look at these following issues. Seek assurance that the Department of Interior and the Health and Human Services meets and reports on the Buy Indian Act. This act is very, very important. It's important for procurement and helps to improve Indian economic development and economic trade. Second, we request that the Department of Interior strengthen the Indian Loan Guarantee Program, as we talked about. This program is very beneficial for access to capital, bringing capital to Indian Country. We also recommend that the program hire folks with banking experience at the Department of Interior. This is probably one of the most critical programs that I, for one, think is important. We also, number three, press Commerce Secretary Raimondo to appoint a qualified Native professional as the director of the Office of Native American Business Development and deploy the $2.3 million that has been identified by the MBDA program to this particular office. We also urge that we urge the White House Office of Presidential Personnel to nominate, appoint, and hire qualified Native professionals to the long-vacant offices and jobs that serve Indian Country. That's very, very important. Years ago, I was an appointee to the Department of Energy as the Tribal Affairs Director. That was very meaningful. We urge and we'd like to see the office get more Natives qualified working for us in all the federal agencies. Finally, we urge the members of this subcommittee to consider and co-sponsor two things. One, tomorrow, Representative Sharice Davids will be submitting a bill to reauthorize the Office of Native American Affairs. That bill will be introduced tomorrow. We urge your support because we do believe that an office is needed in the Small Business Administration. The second is the Tribal Tax and Investment Reform legislation to eliminate the essential government function, as Chairman Butler pointed out earlier. This test has been very restrictive on tribes issuing bond authority. Okay, I'm moving up. Also, we also urge your support on eliminating dual taxation in Indian Country. So I thank the committee for focusing and looking at Indian economic development. I've been working on this for many, many years and urge your support so that we can improve Indian economies. So thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Watchman. At this time, the chair recognizes Mr. Harris for five minutes. Mr. Harris.

Chairman Hurd, Ranking Member Leger Fernandez, and distinguished members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me to today's important hearing highlighting tribal and Native economies. My name is Haven Harris. I'm an Iñupiaq Eskimo, a tribally enrolled member of the Nome Eskimo Community, and a shareholder of both the Sitnasuak Native Corporation and the Bering Straits Native Corporation. I was born and raised in Nome, Alaska. Today, I serve as the Senior Vice President of Growth and Strategy at the Bering Straits Native Corporation. I also have the honor of serving as the co-chair of the Native American Contractors Association, or NACA for short. NACA was formed in 2003 as a national organization representing companies owned by Alaska Native Corporations, Indian tribes, and Native Hawaiian organizations, collectively referred to as Native entity-owned companies. Our mission is to strengthen Native self-determination through participation in federal contracting, grounded in the unique political and legal relationship between Native peoples and the federal government. NACA represents 45 organizations nationwide that collectively serve more than 1 million tribal citizens, Alaska Native shareholders, and Native Hawaiians. The Small Business Administration's 8(a) Business Development Program is central to this mission. Congress explicitly authorized tribal participation in 1982, expanded the program to Alaska Native Corporations in 1988, thank you Senator Stevens, and to Native Hawaiian organizations in 2002. This framework is rooted in the Constitution, affirmed repeatedly by Congress, and reinforced through decades of bipartisan support as has been mentioned numerous times in this committee. Native 8(a) companies are fundamentally different from individually owned firms. They are not owned by a single entrepreneur or driven by private shareholder return. Instead, they are community-owned enterprises with a direct responsibility to reinvest profits into the people they serve. Revenues generated through federal contracting essentially support essential services such as healthcare, education, public safety, housing, and infrastructure, often in some of the most remote and logistically challenging regions in the United States. Native participation in the 8(a) program is therefore part of the federal government's fulfillment of its trust and treaty obligations. The success of this model is clear. In fiscal year 2024, Native 8(a) companies received $26.2 billion in federal contracting awards, representing approximately 4 percent of all federal contracting. Nearly 70 percent of those awards supported the Department of Defense, where Native contractors deliver mission-critical capabilities, support readiness, and enable rapid response through streamlined procurement authorities. These tools reduce procurement timelines, lower administrative burden, and improve continuity of operations across the government, which strengthens the lethality of the warfighter. Alaska Native Corporations were created under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, or ANCSA, as a deliberate economic model, one designed to provide long-term benefits to Alaska Native shareholders through sustainable business activity. For many ANCs, participation in federal contracting has been one of the most effective tools Congress has provided to turn that model into real, measurable outcomes for our communities. For the Bering Straits Native Corporation, an Alaska Native Corp, these benefits are tangible. They include dividends to shareholders, elder benefits, which is a special dividend that we're allowed to give our elders 65 and older who are original shareholders, scholarships, job training, and investments in infrastructure in some of the most remote communities in the United States. I'd invite you to come to Nome someday and see what remote really looks like. Places with no road access, limited services, and few alternative economic opportunities. To put this in real terms, in the Bering Straits region where I grew up, families routinely pay $11 a gallon for gas, $10 for a half-gallon of milk, this was verified this weekend in Unalakleet, Alaska, for example, and $11 for a pound of ground beef. Costs that make shareholder benefits from Native-owned companies not just economic development, but economic survival. Federal contracting programs that include Native-owned entities, companies, are narrowly tailored economic tools grounded in federal Indian law, upheld repeatedly by Congress and the courts, and designed to address geographic isolation, market barriers, and historic federal obligations. In closing, until Native economic opportunity improves dramatically, Native access to the 8(a) program must be protected. Until every Native who wants to work has access to meaningful employment, the program must be protected. And until Native children have a quality of life comparable to other Americans, the program must be protected. The Native 8(a) program is working exactly as Congress intended: strengthening Native economies, supporting federal missions, and fulfilling the government's trust responsibility to our people. Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to your questions.

Perfect timing as well. Thank you, Mr. Harris, for that testimony. The chair will now recognize members for five minutes of questions, and I'd like to begin by recognizing the gentlewoman from the state of Wyoming and former chair of Indian and Insular Affairs, Ms. Hageman, for five minutes. Ms. Hageman.

Thank you, Chairman Hurd, and Ranking Member Leger Fernandez. It's wonderful to be back here in this committee room addressing economic development issues. I just first want to say something in response to the tirade from Mr. Huffman. I believe he really got off track, but I think there's some important things to point out here. First of all, personal safety and economic development are interrelated, and they are we need personal safety and tribal safety in order to have economic development on our reservations. And it was under the Biden administration that they threw open the border, and as a result, we ended up in circumstances where we had a couple of hearings where various leaders from different tribes came and talked about the impact of the drug cartels invading the reservations and the consequences of that. Under Kash Patel, I have specifically and personally spoken to him, made sure that this was a priority, that security and safety on our reservations and for our tribal members was a very high priority for this administration. I want to assure you that Kash Patel, the FBI Director, has indicated that it is so, and I hope that he is working with our reservation and our tribal leaders to make sure that we can keep our members safe and secure. Thank you for allowing me to wave on to today's hearing. Tribal economic development was one of my top priorities during my tenure last Congress as this subcommittee chair, and I do appreciate your leadership on this issue. Chairwoman Silvas, I very much appreciate your coming here, but also something that you mentioned in your testimony is so important to myself as well as Ranking Member Leger Fernandez, and that is H.R. 5910. We are working together to pass that. That is a bill that would allow our tribes to lease their lands for up to 99 years. That is advanced out of this committee and passed the House last Congress, and it has again been reported by this committee so that we can get that passed in the House. I am hoping that we can or that it gets passed in the Senate. I am working on that now because I know that that is a very important opportunity for many of our tribal members. Ms. Silvas, could you please speak to the opportunities that this policy change may open up for your tribe if you're able to lease your lands for 99 years?

Yes, I believe that tribes are should be able to control their own lands, and we believe that we are smart enough to make those decisions and make those negotiations and be able to choose those leasing terms.

Ms. Silvas, I absolutely agree with you. And that's why one of the reasons why we have worked so hard to push that forward. I have visited with leadership from various tribes over the years as to the benefits that that would provide. If you talk to the folks with Agua Caliente in Southern California, the success model that they or the business model that they have been able to put forward because the 99-year lease opportunity has really benefited the members there. Mr. Chairman Butler, I would like to turn to you real quickly, and as you noted, the federal policy response to COVID opened up new tribal opportunities in departments and agencies that lacked experience working with tribal governments or tribal communities. This has been a frustration of mine since I first went onto this subcommittee and understanding the challenges with that government-to-government relationship. Could you please describe how an agency's misunderstanding of tribal sovereignty and the government-to-government relationship and unique tribal circumstances have impacted your success, if you will, as a tribe?

Well, I think it goes back to Mr. Watchman's point about having folks that understand tribal governance and policy in these departments administering these programs, right? And so, I mean, in the case of, you know, ARPA or or other COVID fundings, you had this large amount of of capital that was made available, and then nobody knew how to disperse it and disperse it effectively. And there were no timelines tied to it as well. And so a lot of those opportunities got caught up or actually lost because those funds weren't deployed because you didn't have those specific resources within those departments. And one of the many hats that I wear is on the Treasury Tribal Advisory Committee, and we have a dedicated team with the Office of Native and Tribal Affairs that focuses on deployment of capital and programs that working within Treasury that have tribal experts employed within the department that are helping tribes and assisting with those programs and communicating directly with Treasury on policy issues.

Well, I think that that is a fabulous idea, and you in your testimony provided some thoughts on designing programs with tribes in mind, but some of these programs already exist and they simply aren't working. And that's what we want to figure out, how to make this work better. What are do you have other ideas of how we could get this government-to-government relationship functioning better for for the benefit of our members?

Well, yeah, one of the things that we're doing under the NAFOA guides is looking at all of the various structures that have been established within, you know, the various STACs and tax and advisory councils and seeing which ones are working. First of all, what are they all and where are they? Which ones are working, which best practices then we could take and apply to to utilize across departments.

Well, we appreciate your advice and any guidance you can provide, and I would say that for the entire panel. Thank you very much for being here. I know I'm out of time and I yield back. Thank you.

Gentlewoman's time has expired. At this time, the chair recognizes the ranking member from the state of New Mexico, Ms. Leger Fernandez, for five minutes. Ms. Leger Fernandez.

Thank you, and the testimony was really excellent, giving us a sense of why it is important. I really want to thank you, Mr. Harris, for bringing our perspective back to why do we have economic development in Indian Country, and that it is a very different model than a for-profit for singular gain, right? It is a public purpose that we are doing this for, and that it was done because the United States had tried to wipe out tribes. And when we finally decided as the United States that that was a bad idea, we passed the Indian Reorganization Act and we recognized that we had so empowered tribes that we needed to also try to create some economic development opportunities, and we did both the Section 16 and then we did the Section 17 saying let's create opportunities for tribal corporations for public benefit. And so thank you for bringing us back to the reason why we need economic development in Indian tribe. It's to benefit the entire tribal community, and then what then happens is you benefit the communities around you, as each of you would be able to say about my tribal economic business is such a great job creator for the people around me. So thank you for doing that. Both Mr. Watchman and Chair Butler talked about one program which was the tribal energy Department of Energy's Tribal Energy Loan Guarantee Program. You each highlighted some of the different problems with it, right? That we need to be able to layer funding and we also need to make sure that it is not inflexible. I was very pleased that the under the Inflation Reduction Act working with NAFOA, we were able to include my bill, the Investment Energy Investment Act, right? Because we need to be able to make it easier and actually have direct loans rather than having to go outside and look for loan guarantees. Like can we eliminate the red tape and have direct loans from the Treasury? But could each of you and separately say how this program, not my bill but the existing one, why we have this problem? Do we we could eliminate it if we eliminated some of the inflexibility that you counted out? I'll start with you, Chairman Butler.

Thank you, Congresswoman. You know, I think the issue with the deployment came down to, as I spoke about earlier with programs generally speaking, there's no clear timelines that that that these funds need to be deployed by, and there's no sense of urgency in in coordinating with tribes to understand what projects are available and assisting tribes in planning those. And so the resources aren't there to in in many cases tribes just don't have the resources and the technical expertise to understand how to navigate through the the red tape of programs like this. And so I think having the the right resources that are empowered to deploy the capital would be is critically important, and that just wasn't happening in the case of this program.

Mr. Watchman.

A couple other components to the program. One was that, you know, to to provide bond guarantee basically work with the capital markets, and in many cases, the capital markets view these credits as specialty credits, and so it takes more resources to to consummate a credit with with a tribal government or a tribal energy project. And so funding it internally obviously is is the big key. But some of the challenges though was the the groundwork, the pre-construction work. You know, you have to hire lawyers, economists, architects, engineers, and that that takes a lot of resources, and tribes right now are limited with, you know, resources and so they're they're obviously trying to provide for health, education, welfare. So to bring on a new project, a new funding source, you know, obviously creates a lot of challenges. And so but I'm glad that the Department of Energy has moved toward indirect loans, but it's a long process, a long process. And so that that's been the challenge when you work with projects on the outside, you know, things are pretty expedient. But to gain approvals on the tribal side, you got tribal council, you have to go out to get community meetings, and then you have the whole bureaucratic process of, you know, the 25 CFR. There's many, many requirements that have to get done before you can deem a project shovel-ready. And so these all obviously lend themselves to, you know, projects. And in fact, there has probably been very few project yet that has been done under this program.

Right. Yeah, and thank you, and you know, we've run out of time, but I think that that was very much the point that the Chairwoman Silvas was making about what do you do on an upfront basis, right? And and how do you make up for that from the small tribe to the big tribe to be able to have those resources upfront? And I think that we should look at is there a way for us to provide that kind of assistance, provide the kind of clearinghouse that Chairwoman Silvas was talking about? In New Mexico, our delegation has a grant finder, right? So we let every tribe in our state, but every person in our tribe can call to us and say, can you help us find that federal grant in the haystack, right? Because there's so many and how can we actually create something that provides that assistance across the federal agencies would be an interesting work. With that, I've gone over my time and I yield back.

That's an interesting idea. The gentlewoman's time has indeed expired. At this time, the chair would like to recognize the chairman of the full House Committee on Natural Resources, the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Westerman, for five minutes. Mr. Westerman.

Thank you, Chairman Hurd, and thank you to the witnesses for being here today. We talk a lot about self-determination, and to me, economic development is the pathway to self-determination. Actually, I don't see how you have self-determination without having strong economic incentives and having and being able to provide jobs and economic growth. And Mr. Harris, you described federal contracting as a market-based alternative to direct federal aid. How does that model address self-determination differently than just traditional grant programs?

Thank you, Representative, and it was it's great to see you again. I I had the honor of attending a meeting in Anchorage when you all you brought the committee up last year in August at the Alaska Native Heritage Center. So thank you for doing that. So the way I look at the federal contracting is it's another way to assist in the self-determination process and to assist the grant-making and formula programs that are already in place for our tribes and Native organizations. The way I really see this buffering self-determination is that by bringing in these funds, this is the ultimate ability for tribes, NHOs, and ANCs from very diverse areas, some so remote that we don't really have economic opportunities in conjunction with the federal government to do work both nationally and internationally, providing competitive prices, sometimes negotiated rates with the federal government, and bringing those benefits back to Alaska and to the other places that we work. And by bringing those benefits back, we're able to create jobs, provide dividends, provide infrastructure development in areas where we often times have the worst economic development, unfortunately, because of our remoteness. We have the lowest levels of education and other items because we have been kind of trying to come back and rally around what was said earlier in bringing ourselves up to the standards in par with the rest of the United States. So for me, this really is the ability to aid self-determination by allowing us, whether it's at a board level or a tribal tribal council level, to determine where those funds go and how they can best serve our local communities and our states.

Thank you, Mr. Butler. It's been talked about how departments and agencies administer numerous tribal economic development programs, but federal barriers often limit their effectiveness. I'm reminded of a conversation I had with a friend who's a tribal member and their tribe is blessed with all these resources and they've invested money to utilize these resources and he was telling me they couldn't get the resources. And I was like, why? I don't I don't get it. The resources are on the reservation. You've got the people and the infrastructure to utilize them. Why can't you get? He said, well, the BIA won't do the paperwork. And I said, well, why don't you all just do the paperwork and take the BIA out of the equation? He said, that's a great idea. Why don't you make that happen? So how does inadequate or inconsistent federal data affect these programs and and how much of a barrier are some of these agencies that are put there to help how much of a barrier to tribal sovereignty are they in economic development?

Well, Chairman Westerman, it's great to see you, always. I was just up in the Quechee area of Vermont and understand you're very fond of that as well, and so hopefully I'll be up there this summer and and I'll see you up there. But data's incredibly important, right? And and without it, it's easy to say a program isn't working or or create an obstacle to deploying funds because you can say that, well, why would we deploy this if if we're not going to get any any results out of it? But if you're not tracking data, you don't know that, right? And so the I don't know the answer to how we get better data. I think that's something that at NAFOA we're committed to looking at and trying to understand why the collection is so difficult and more importantly how we can standardize it across agencies because if we're looking at standard data, we can see where programs are working or not working and how we can better cross-pollinate programs and working together. And so, you know, in that sense of the impact on sovereignty, again, if a if a program lead or director isn't deploying or willing to work with a tribe because they don't feel without the good data that it's actually going to be beneficial, they might slow-roll that program or might just ignore it altogether. And I think that's what tribes are seeing when they're interacting with various members of of the departments that that you feel like you're just running your head up against the wall against, right? And you're and you're stuck in a in a information-gathering phase and you're never moving forward with any actual movement because of that.

Thank you very much. I have a lot more questions but no more time.

The gentleman's time has indeed expired. At this time, the chair would like to recognize the gentlewoman from the state of Washington, Ms. Randall, for five minutes. Ms. Randall.

Thank you so much, Chairman Hurd, and Ranking Member Leger Fernandez for holding this hearing. We're here to talk about economic development, and I will get to that, but I just was struck by my colleague from Wyoming's remarks about how an agency's misunderstanding of tribal governments and tribal sovereignty can lead to negative outcomes and couldn't help but say that we are seeing that on the ground in my district and my state as well as in Minnesota, the really challenging and dangerous interactions between Homeland Security agents and tribal nations and a misunderstanding or disregard of sovereignty when detaining American citizens, tribal citizens, and coming onto reservation land. I've heard from women who are tribal leaders who are, you know, taking advantage of the fact that there's one road in and off on and off the reservation, and so we'll just go park their truck across the road because that is the best way to keep their community safe. I'm glad and grateful that we're able to have this conversation about removing barriers and strengthening understanding as it relates to economic development, but want to ensure that we are able to have these conversations across agency interactions, ensuring that we are truly defending sovereignty. I know that our bureaucracy is vast and difficult to try to navigate for local governments, for tribal nations, particularly smaller tribal organizations, and we have to identify opportunities to streamline these processes and services wherever possible, especially to uphold our treaty and trust obligations and ensure that tribes can take advantage of federal resources. ...resources and programs. In my district, we've seen incredibly positive effects from the Recompete program, recently authorized by my predecessor and led policy led by my predecessor. It's been critical to economically distressed communities like in the Olympic Peninsula to leverage federal investments to reinvigorate local economies. The Makah Tribe has been a key partner in this work on the peninsula, but these programs are only as good as the funding they receive from Congress and how the administration actually uses those funds or releases them as the case may be. Unfortunately, over the past year, we've seen the Trump administration create confusion and chaos by illegally freezing these federal funds issued by Congress and reducing staffing capacity. Your testimony today, and thank you all for making the trip here, makes clear that flexibility, adequate federal funding, and reliable staffing are key to successful economic development. The National Center's assessment of this administration's impact on Indian Country highlights this as well. One section of the report that really stood out for me was the discussion around the administration's abandonment of climate resiliency efforts. They noted that weakened agencies and tribal partnerships and insufficient funding have left tribal communities more vulnerable to climate change. Mr. Watchman, how important are partnerships between federal agencies and tribes for implementing economic development programs and how have staffing reductions over the past year affected these relationships?

Thank you, Madam Congressman. Staffing reductions have certainly created, like I said, a pause on many of the programs. Like for example, out in Arizona, for example, the Hopi Tribe was granted an enormous amount of funding for electrifying their community, but the funds were put on hold. Actually, the funds were taken away. So, the Hopi Nation now has very limited opportunities. Right now, they're trying to electrify their homes. In Indian Country, especially in our area, we still have a lot of homes that don't have electricity. And so, they have to use kerosene lamps or generators and things of that nature. And so, the elimination of that program basically is halting what Hopi is doing. In our case with the National Center, for example, we got a big grant to move forward tourism. And so, that program got cut at the Bureau of Indian Affairs. So, we were left in a lurch. What do we do? There's no communication, so we had to put our program on hold. In fact, we had to lay off five folks. We got the cooperative agreement two years ago. We announced, we made these big announcements around the country saying we're really going to push tourism. The BIA office shut down, no funding. So, unfortunately, we had to, in fact, we relocated a lot of folks from different parts of the country to our office. So now they're unemployed. And so, obviously, a sad situation. We made a lot of promises. And so, but in general, Indian Country, there's just this unique relationship because you look at the federal government, through the Bureau of Indian Affairs, is our trustee. So they have a lot of say in, you mentioned tribes, our agreements, if you look at the land leases, they're actually BIA instruments. And so, we have to rely on the Bureau of Indian Affairs, plus there's all kinds of restrictions. I, for example, I have a small business in my little town, Navajo, New Mexico. It took six years just to get a business permit. And this business permit was in conjunction with the Navajo Nation and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. And so, I could never figure out why it took six years, but finally six years later, I finally got a document that signed that I could operate the business. That takes way, way too long. And they tell me that the reason for that is there's just so many layers and a big process, red tape if you will. And so, that obviously stymied my business and it creates a lot of challenges for folks that want to create and come home. We do have a lot of folks that are leaving, but they want to come home and create businesses. But because of the partnership, if you will, with BIA, it's virtually impossible in many cases.

Thank you so much for that testimony, Mr. Watchman, and thank you for your grace, Mr. Chair. I yield back.

You're welcome. The gentleman's time has expired. At this time, the Chair recognizes himself for five minutes. Chairwoman Silvas, in your testimony, first, it's good to see you. In your testimony, you said in several instances the Shivwits Band has become aware of federal programs only after application deadlines have passed or after funds have already been awarded to other entities. Could you give me a few examples of what those instances were just so we can help concretely see opportunities that were missed?

Yes, we had a current one that came up just recently and that was the IHBG grant. We found out about that in early December and that grant was actually due January 15 of 2026.

What would that have been for?

Housing. Housing, yes. It's a much-needed on our reservation. So that was one thing that we're constantly on the lookout for is better housing for our memberships. And with the notice that we received and just the short timeframe to get everything in and being a small band with very little resources, it was just not possible for us to do that in time.

How do federal agencies typically communicate with the Shivwits Band today about these opportunities, or do they not? Is it up to you to go out and find these opportunities?

Yes, there's no communication at all. Previously, in my experience, what I've seen is the federal government will email a generic letter to tribal nations. But what they forget to, or what they're not knowledgeable about, is when we have new elections. So we're having all of these emails go to previous chairpeople and then by the time that we're able to get that change, it's too late and we find out about grants too late. And there's just got to be a better process in that.

Great. Thank you, Chairwoman Silvas. Chairman Butler, you said something really interesting in your testimony, that the total assistance to tribes is unknown. That's certainly something that we ought to have a handle on. That's a very interesting bit of information. I wanted to chat with you though quickly about predictable timelines and how important they are to financing, contracting, and also workforce planning, particularly in those tribal communities that have a limited administrative capacity. Where do federal economic development projects most commonly stall and what aspects of the process are usually responsible for that?

Thank you, Chairman. Great question. It typically stalls in the planning process, right? And I think listening to Chairwoman Silvas, I mean, that's exactly what we're trying to address in this conversation, what we're trying to address at our various organizations and making sure that it's fair across the board to all tribes that need access to resources and these programs. And so the fact that a smaller nation doesn't have those in-house resources to, one, even find the grants and programs that are available, and then two, to fill out the, go by the process and understand the process and go through the applications, there's no resources to assist them. So there needs to be more focused technical resources that are available to tribes and not just a blanket, here's a program and if you hear about it, great, and if not, tough luck. That's the way it's structured today. And so even if you're lucky enough to hear, and like we have a grants team at Mashantucket and we still miss thousands of opportunities. So I can't even imagine what Chairwoman goes through on a daily basis and the lack of opportunity that she sees in her community. But having those resources, and that's what our orgs try to fill in those gaps, but it's just not enough.

Thank you very much, Chairman Butler. Mr. Harris, from your experience, what specific features of federal contracting, I'm thinking of things like speed or predictability, reduced administrative friction, what things most clearly distinguish successful native contracting outcomes from programs that fail to deliver lasting economic benefits?

I would really highlight the fact that with the 8(a) program, we, one, we're in a smaller field of competition, therefore it allows the smaller organizations that are just growing and even some of us that are much larger to have an opportunity to compete on a more even playing field. And two, something that I think provides a great benefit back to all the agencies in the federal government is when we do these sole source opportunities, we can cut our procurement timelines from anywhere from 12 to 16 months on a competitive award down, I've seen them done in 15 days in extreme circumstances, but typically 30 to 60 days. We're able to negotiate pricing with the federal government so that there's an open field and nobody sees or nobody is aware of any inability to hit the mark in terms of negotiated pricing. And we're able also to negotiate scope so that there's a clear level of expectation across the customer and the federal government. That allows us to interact more as equal partners.

Okay. That's very helpful. Thank you. My time has now expired. At this time, I would like to recognize the gentlewoman from the state of Arizona, Ms. Grijalva, for five minutes. Ms. Grijalva.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered on indigenous land and honoring the tribal nations who have stewarded these lands since time immemorial. That acknowledgment must be more than ceremonial. It must be reflected in our laws, our budgets, our priorities, and our commitment to justice. I am proud to represent Arizona's 7th Congressional District, home to the vibrant and resilient tribal nations, including Cocopah Tribe, the Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation, the Tohono O'odham Nation, and Pascua Yaqui Tribe, whose histories, cultures, and leadership are inseparable from the story of this region. Tribal sovereignty is not a privilege granted by the federal government. It is an inherent right, affirmed by treaties and enshrined by the Constitution. But sovereignty without resources is hollow. For generations, tribal communities have faced chronic underinvestment that has constrained economic growth and limiting opportunity. This is a result of that deliberate policy choices and today this administration is making exceedingly difficult for tribal nations to prosper. We can and must do better. True tribal sovereignty demands more than words. It requires meaningful federal investments that empower self-determination, support economic development, and ensure equitable access to opportunity. That's why access to capital is so critical. That's why federal programs that are specifically designed to meet the unique needs of tribal nations must be strengthened, not dismantled. The 8(a) program is intended to help tribal nations overcome historic economic exclusion and build sustainable long-term enterprises. The Pascua Yaqui Tribe in my district has raised concern surrounding the 8(a) program and around the real hardships under this administration's actions. Many tribal nations are sovereign but keep having negative consequences of being classified as part of this administration's cutting of what they consider DEI. Mr. Watchman, can you describe on the record what losing the 8(a) program would mean for tribal businesses and workers and how your organization is working to ensure the continued successful implementation of the program?

Thank you. Through the National Center, obviously, we've been working hand-in-hand with the Native American Contractors Association. And so the 8(a) program has been a very effective and productive program for many of the Alaska Native Corporations and our native-owned businesses. And so basically, it's a program that helps to jumpstart a lot of our native-owned businesses. And so with the program shutting down, obviously, as was pointed out by the gentleman who represents the Native American Contractors Association, that'd be big cuts in their revenue sources. Being a member of the Navajo Nation, we do have an 8(a). It's a smaller one, but if the 8(a) program is cut, that means half, half the workforce, half of the team members for the Navajo Nation's 8(a) program would have to look for jobs elsewhere. And so this program has been very, very effective. And what that means is that these 8(a) programs are able to employ native members. These 8(a) programs and the revenue and the profits that are generated is used to offset tribal government costs. Because you got to remember, a lot of tribes don't have a tax base like regular states and counties. So without a tax base, we don't have a revenue source to operate government programs. And so big cuts if the program is cut, you'll see a lot of impact to tribal government around the country. And so there's very few other options. Gaming is one, but with the 574 tribes here in the country, only about a third benefit from gaming. The rest need these entities like 8(a)s to help provide for the health, education, and welfare of their tribal governments.

Thank you. Tribal nations need meaningful voice in federal decision-making and consultation must be timely, transparent, and effective. As Chairman Butler's testimony notes, some federal departments and agencies treat consultation as a box-checking exercise, which is unacceptable. Chairman Butler, can you explain what distinguishes meaningful consultation from listening sessions and why it is important that all federal agencies receive training in government-to-government consultation practices as your testimony recommends?

Yeah, I think I would recognize the poster child of success in that is the Treasury Department. And again, what we've done with the Treasury Tribal Advisory Committee and the Office of Native and Tribal Affairs. We take consultation seriously. We engage on multiple occasions tribal leaders directly. And then the feedback from those tribal leaders on the programs that we're looking at, and recently the GWE rules and the tribally chartered corporations, they get inserted into the actual rules. And so much so that the TTAC itself, we had to advise to like pull some things out because they put everything in the kitchen sink in. And so it was great. And the way that they engaged through utilizing the direct resources of the Office of Tribal and Native Affairs was key because having experts, tribal experts in the room, in the department assisting with that communication and those consultations was critical.

Thank you. I yield back.

The gentlewoman's time has expired. At this time, the Chair would like to recognize the gentleman from the state of Michigan, Mr. Walberg, for five minutes. Mr. Walberg.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks for being here as a panel to provide us oversight, insight. And so thank you so much. I want to thank the committee as well for the opportunity for this oversight because having both the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi as well as the Nottawaseppi Band of the Potawatomi Indians in my district, I know it is important that we understand how many support opportunities there are for municipal governments, the employment of thousands of people in Southwest Michigan, the critical services that are provided to their members that I've had the opportunity to see as they function is extremely important. So hearing like this to make sure that the array of federal programs are used appropriately to assist and not to hinder is very important. Ms. Silvas, in your testimony, you explained how projects are technically open to all tribes, but due to requirements of the programs like staffing, technical issues, the expertise or lack of expertise there, financial reserves, smaller tribes are often unable to participate. What program design features tend to advantage larger, better-resourced tribes even when programs are nominally open to all tribes?

Right now, I don't feel comfortable with answering that question. So if I can get back with you with a written?

Okay. That would be helpful. I'd open that to any others who would like to answer that question again. What program design features tend to advantage larger tribes? I'll wait for your response on that.

Yeah, Congressman Walberg. One, I just recognize the point that you made that tribal economies aren't just about tribal economies. It's about prosperity for the surrounding regions as well in the state. And that's an important fact to note. But in building to your question, you said it's for large tribes. It depends on resources, right? I think larger tribes in the sense of resources that are available, that's where the advantages are. And that's the point that we're talking about, that we need to balance the opportunity for all tribes and having the technical expertise available to all tribes and streamlining processes so that it's much more understandable for everyone to take advantage of.

Yeah. I mean, they're nominally open to everyone, but how to get that is the concern. Exactly. How could programs be structured so smaller tribes have a realistic opportunity to participate without disadvantaging tribes that already have capacity? Ms. Silvas? And I could open it to anyone who would care to answer that.

I'll take a stab at it. I was chief of staff for two former Navajo presidents. And obviously, well not obviously, but larger tribes do have a few more resources, few more staff people to be able to look at these different opportunities. But as a former banker working with the smaller tribes, a lot of tribes are bare-bone. A lot of tribes just have very, very limited resources. So the programs that they fund are, like for example, the police and social services, education. And then again, it's really hard, really hard to get challenges. Also, our young, our young natives are graduating, but they're not coming back to the reservation because of limited economic opportunities, limited education. So you have in many cases, it's really hard to find qualified, competent, skilled tribal members to come home and work for the tribe. I see that quite a bit on Navajo. A lot of folks say, well, I want to raise a family, but the education, things are terrible, so why go home? So that's one of the challenges that many reservations face, including my reservation, is how hard to pay all your bills. So the smaller tribes in many cases just don't have the resources to hire the talent and to employ those folks. And so yes, there's a lot of opportunities out there, but the smaller tribes, as you're suggesting, do have challenges in getting things done. But the bigger tribes also have also challenges. And so it's just a challenge. So how do you fix that? How do you improve that? I think as was suggested, some more consultation, more notice that there's resources available. And in many cases, my prior work, in many cases, there's turnover in the federal government. So I joke about it, but sometimes you have to do Indian 101. And that's to train the federal programs as to how reservations work. There's 574 different tribes. Every tribe is different. And so it takes unique challenges to understand how this tribe works versus this tribe.

That's my quick answer to your question. Thank you. My time has expired and I yield back.

The gentleman's time has expired. At this time, I want to thank each of our witnesses for your valuable testimony and also my colleagues for their questions. Members of the committee may have additional questions for you witnesses and we would ask that you respond to those in writing. Under committee rule 3, members of the committee must submit questions to the committee clerk by 5:00 PM on Friday, February 6, 2026. The hearing record will be held open for 10 business days for these responses. Is there any further business?

Mr. Chair, I'd like to seek unanimous consent to enter into the record Executive Order 14112 issued by President Biden titled "Tribal Access," sorry, titled "Reforming Federal Funding and Support for Tribal Nations to Better Embrace Our Trust Responsibilities and Promote the Next Era of Tribal Self-Determination." This executive order, which as you can see by its title, is intended to do some of the work we're talking about here, was rescinded by President Trump on March 2025. And I thought about it because of your questions with regards to the need to have like a clearinghouse. The revocation in essence revoked the Tribal Access to Capital Clearinghouse that came about because of the executive order. The executive order asked to look at additional funding needed to carry out the kind of projects we're talking about here. How can agencies have waivers, waivers of their own policies which they are authorized to do, but what kind of waivers so we can have better tribal access to federal funding? How do we promote contracting and compacting? And these are the kinds of things I think are very useful that were laid out in the executive order, which shouldn't be controversial, which I think we should look at and look at actually codifying so that they are not dependent on one president wanting to rescind all the prior president's executive orders regardless of the merit. But these are the kinds of things we're talking about that hopefully we can work together on a bipartisan basis. Thank you for triggering that in my mind with your question.

Worthy discussion. Without objection, that will become part of the record as well as that testimony that you just gave. Thank you, Ranking Member Leger Fernandez. If there is no further business, without objection, the committee stands adjourned. Thank you all. [Gavel sounds.]