[Senate Report 115-174]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 248
115th Congress } { Report
SENATE
1st Session } { 115-174
======================================================================
AMENDING THE NATIVE AMERICAN BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, TRADE PROMOTION, AND
TOURISM ACT OF 2000, THE BUY INDIAN ACT, AND THE NATIVE AMERICAN
PROGRAMS ACT OF 1974 TO PROVIDE INDUSTRY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
OPPORTUNITIES TO INDIAN COMMUNITIES
_______
October 17, 2017.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Hoeven, from the Committee on Indian Affairs,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 1116]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Indian Affairs, to which was referred the
bill (S. 1116) to amend the Native American Business
Development, Trade Promotion, and Tourism Act of 2000, the Buy
Indian Act, and the Native American Programs Act of 1974 to
provide industry and economic development opportunities to
Indian communities, having considered the same, reports
favorably thereon with amendments and recommends that the bill,
as amended, do pass.
PURPOSE
The purpose of S. 1116 is to amend three Federal laws
relating to business, economic, and trade development in Indian
communities. These amendments are intended to increase access
to capital for Indian tribes and businesses, increase
opportunities for Indian business promotion, and create
mechanisms and tools to attract investments in Indian
communities.
NEED FOR LEGISLATION
The Committee has held numerous hearings and listening
sessions at which Indian tribal leaders, business owners, and
entrepreneurs testified regarding significant challenges to
economic development in Indian communities. The most prevalent
problem has been accessing capital to start, build, and grow
businesses. Long-range planning and coordination for tribal
community development to facilitate business growth has also
been an issue for many Indian tribes. Moreover, Federal
programs that assist economic development have not been
adequately supportive of Indian communities economic growth.
Despite these problems, the Committee is confident that the
potential for long-term sustainable and stable economies exists
and can be fulfilled through both legislative and
administrative improvements. The bill, S. 1116, is an important
first step toward these goals and addressing these problems.
This bill can help create jobs at the local level and
assist small business growth and development. Moreover, it can
help Indian tribes engage in more cohesive community
development. In addition, S. 1116 reduces the costs of engaging
in economic development projects in Indian communities by
rolling back federal bureaucratic oversight.
BACKGROUND
The prospect of prosperity often falls short in many Indian
communities across the nation. Too many of these communities
across the nation face unique and daunting challenges. High
rates of unemployment, crime, and poverty and other problems
are compounded by the lack of adequate infrastructure, rugged
terrain, and geographic isolation of these communities.
In fact, many of these problems have persisted for years.
The Committee noted that
``The unemployment rate for American Indian and
Alaskan Native populations continues to hover at 50%,
with some Native communities suffering unemployment
rates of 80-90%. In addition, American Indians and
Alaskan Natives have the highest poverty rate in the
country at 30%. These statistics reflect a variety of
factors including poor physical infrastructure, lack of
human capital, lack of access to financial capital, a
long-standing dependence on federal transfer payments,
and an almost non-existent private sector economy in
Native communities.''\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ S.Rpt 106-149, 106th Cong., 1st Sess., Sept. 8, 1999, at 2.
The federal government has struggled to address this
troubling reality. In her testimony before this Committee on
behalf of the Department of the Interior, Ms. Cheryl Andrews-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maltais stated that
``Native communities have experienced disproportional
barriers to economic development. Economic development
is critical for building capacity in Indian Country in
other areas such as law enforcement, health, education,
natural resource management, and infrastructure. Even
in good economic times, the unemployment rate in these
communities and villages is double the national
average.''\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ S.2285, S.3234, S.3261, and H.R.4685. Hearing before the
S.Comm. Ind. Aff., September 7, 2016. Statement of Cheryl Andrews-
Maltais, at 11.
Ms. Alejandra Castillo, on behalf of the Department of
Commerce, reiterated, ``By any socioeconomic indicator, Native
Americans are the most underserved population in the
Country.''\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Accessing Capital in Indian Country. Hearing before the S.Comm.
Ind. Aff., June 17, 2015. Statement of Alejandra Castillo, at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Michael R. Smith, also on behalf of the Department of
the Interior, has further elaborated on the economic inhibitors
Indian communities face in trying to build stable and
sustainable economies, which ultimately will reduce
unemployment and help reduce a host of other social problems:
``While each Tribal community and their economy is
unique, there are a number of common factors that have
inhibited economic development in Indian Country.
Primary road blocks include, one, lack of collateral in
which Tribes and reservation businesses can obtain
capital; number two, lack of a business development
environment; number three, lack of physical and legal
infrastructure; number four, difficulty in developing
natural resources due to multiple governments having
regulatory and taxing jurisdiction over development;
number five, lack of educational and training
opportunities to develop a skilled work force; and
number six, lack of access to modern technology.''\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Strengthening Self-Sufficiency: Overcoming Barriers to Economic
Development In Native Communities'' Field Hearing before the S.Comm.
Ind. Aff. August 17, 2011. 112th Cong., at 3.
The Committee has long focused on and prioritized helping
``Indian communities to prosper and to enjoy healthier
lives.''\5\ In a 2015 hearing, then-Chairman of the Committee,
Senator John Barrasso stated that ``fundamental to these goals
is the need to build sustainable tribal economies and create
jobs in Indian communities. Economic development and the
capital necessary for that development are significant needs in
Indian communities.''\6\ These Indian communities ``are located
in remote areas, far away from transportation, distribution, or
communication systems suitable for sustainable commerce.''\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\Accessing Capital in Indian Country. Hearing before the S.Comm.
Ind. Aff. June 17, 2015. Statement of John Barrasso, at 1.
\6\Id.
\7\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OVERVIEW
This legislation, S. 1116, would amend three federal laws
relating to economic development in Indian communities: the
Native American Business Development, Trade Promotion, and
Tourism Act of 2000, the Native American Programs Act, and the
Buy Indian Act.
Native American Business Development, Trade Promotion, and
Tourism Act of 2000. The bill would amend the Native American
Business Development, Trade Promotion, and Tourism Act of 2000
to:
Require coordination between the Secretaries
of Commerce, Interior, and Treasury to develop
initiatives encouraging investment in Indian
communities;
Elevate the Director of Indian Programs in
the Department of Commerce and authorize the funding
for operations; and
Make permanent the waiver of the requirement
for Native CDFIs to provide a matching cost share for
assistance received by the Treasury CDFI.
The Committee noted long ago ``better coordination of
federal Indian economic development programs and resources will
promote greater efficiency as tribes, tribal members, private
sector representatives, and individuals engage in business
development on Indian lands.''\8\ To that end, the Committee
passed S.401 during the 106th Congress, which established an
Office of Native American Business Development in the
Department of Commerce. That Office was established ``to
promote both intra-agency and inter-agency coordination of
federal programs that affect Indian economic development.''\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\S.Rpt.106-149, 106th Cong., 1st Sess., Sept. 8, 1999, at 2.
\9\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee, however, is concerned that those efforts as
envisioned by Congress in passing P.L. 106-_ have been
frustrated and such coordination is inefficient in assisting,
promoting economic development and reducing poverty and
unemployment in Indian communities. This legislation, S. 1116,
would advance these goals in a more effective manner by
elevating the Office and ensuring proper Secretarial attention
to the economic development needs of Indian Country.
The legislation would further increase the coordination
among and accountability of the federal agencies as well. The
Secretaries of Commerce, Interior, and Treasury would be
required to collaborate to promote investment in Indian
communities, identify barriers to such investments, and ensure
consultation with Indian tribes. Not less than every three
years, these Secretaries would be required to report to
Congress on the results of the initiatives developed.
This coordination is necessary, not only for developing
initiatives, but also for collecting information and data
needed to identify and reduce barriers to investments. Mr.
Black, testifying on behalf of the Department of the Interior,
explained that ``for the United States to adequately identify
and focus on unemployment in Indian Country, we must first
collect reliable data that will allow us to track progress over
time.''\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\Strengthening Self-Sufficiency: Overcoming Barriers to Economic
Development In Native Communities'' Field Hearing before the S.Comm.
Ind. Aff. August 17, 2011. 112th Cong., at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department of Commerce, particularly through the Office
of Native American Business Development, has already developed
a variety of cooperative programs. Ms. Castillo testified
before this Committee that the Minority Business Development
Agency of the Department of Commerce ``work[s] closely with
other Federal agencies outside the Department of Commerce such
as the Small Business Administration and Treasury to leverage
existing programs that increase capital opportunities for MBEs
through micro lending, community development, financial
institutions, and other loan guarantee programs.''\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\Accessing Capital in Indian Country. Hearing before the S.Comm.
Ind. Aff., June 17, 2015. Statement of Alejandra Castillo, at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This cooperation has led to relatively significant results.
For example, this ``network center has served 1,100 American
Indian and Alaskan Native firms. Further, over the past six
fiscal years, FY 2009 through FY 2014, the MBDA has assisted
Native American clients in accessing over $1.8 billion in
capital.'' The Committee strongly believes that additional
cooperation, collaboration, and consultation with Indian
Country could lead to even more remarkable results.
In increasing access to capital, the Native Community
Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs) have been relatively
successful in delivering capital to underserved Indian
communities. Mr. Dennis Nolan, on behalf of the Department of
the Treasury, acknowledged that ``[t]he CDFI Fund's work in
Indian Country is born of an awareness that Native communities
all across the Nation face extraordinary economic challenges
and limited access to capital.''\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\Economic Development: Encouraging Investment in Indian Country.
Hearing before the S.Comm. Ind. Aff. June 25, 2014. Statement of Dennis
Nolan, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Nolan testified that ``[i]n 2001, the CDFI published
the landmark Native American Lending Study . . . [which]
identified 17 major barriers that limit access to capital in
Native communities and offered a variety of recommendations to
address them.''\13\ Within ten years, the number of Native
CDFIs grew from just a few to 68 in 21 states.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\Id.
\14\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These Native CDFIs typically provide microloans up to
$250,000 for Indian businesses and entrepreneurs, with an
average loan of approximately $24,000.\15\ From 2004 to 2014,
``Native CDFIs that received NACA program awards [from the
Department of the Treasury's Native American CDFI Assistance
Program] made over 15,000 loans totaling $365 million in Native
communities.''\16\ Additionally,``[c]ertified CDFIs made almost
7,000 loans and investments totaling $184 million in Native
communities. Native CDFIs reported that their loans and
investments created or retained more than 2,000 jobs.''\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\The University of Arizona Native Nations Institute, ``Access to
Capital and Credit in Native Communities,'' (May 2016), at 14.
\16\Id.
\17\Economic Development: Encouraging Investment in Indian Country.
Hearing before the S.Comm. Ind. Aff. June 25, 2014. Statement of Dennis
Nolan, at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Native CDFIs receive some federal funding to make these
loans. In its annual Appropriation Acts, Congress waived the
cost share requirement for the respective fiscal year for
Native CDFI awardees. This legislation, S. 1116, would make
that waiver permanent. With a permanent waiver, Native CDFIs
can more efficiently provide access to capital to underserved
Indian communities.
The Committee reiterates Mr. Nolan's statement that ``[the
Treasury CDFI Fund's] work and the work of every Native CDFI is
about changing lives and building stronger, more resilient
communities.''\18\ This serious mission mandates that every
effort be taken to strengthen and support this important tool
for Indian community economies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Native American Programs Act. The bill would amend the
Native American Programs Act to:
Reauthorize the economic development
programs;
Prioritize grant applications for building
tribal court systems and code development for economic
development; supporting CDFIs; and developing master
plans for community and economic development; and
Prioritize groups engaged in the above
mentioned activity when providing technical advice.
In 2001, then-Vice Chairman of the Committee, Senator Ben
Nighthorse Campbell, stated, ``It is increasingly apparent that
the kind of governing environment that a tribe has in place
will determine whether or not businesses will prosper and jobs
and income will flow.''\19\ He further elaborated that ``[b]y
`good governance' I mean stable institutions with
administrative capacity, fair and effective dispute resolutions
with an appeals process, a separation of politics from business
management and transparency in government, to name a few.''\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\Indian Tribal Good Governance Practices as they Relate to
Economic Development. Hearing before the S.Comm. Ind. Aff. July 18,
2001. Statement of Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell, at 1.
\20\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Andrew Lee, testifying before the Committee, noted that
``[g]overnance goes a long way toward explaining why some
tribes are able to break poverty, dependency and their related
social ills while others languish.''\21\ He further explained
that based on research from the Harvard Project, ``[t]ribal
enterprises that are formally insulated from political
interference are four times as likely to be profitable from
those that are not.''\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\Indian Tribal Good Governance Practices as they Relate to
Economic Development. Hearing before the S.Comm. Ind.Aff. July 18,
2001. Statement of Andrew Lee, at 28.
\22\Id. at 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The November 2001 Report of the Native American Lending
Study noted that ``one major barrier to capital access related
to legal infrastructure'' was the ``uncertain tribal commercial
laws and regulations and the absence of an independent
judiciary.''\23\ In testimony before the Committee, Mr. Derrick
Watchman, Chairman of the Board of the National Center for
American Indian Enterprise Development (NCAIED), underscored
that finding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\The Report of the Native American Lending Study. Community
Development Financial Institutions Fund. U.S. Dept. of the Treasury.
November, 2001, at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A banker by trade, Mr. Watchman discussed how tribal
governments, the banks, and the Federal Government [could]
facilitate access to capital in Indian Country.\24\ He
testified, ``It is very helpful for tribal governments to
establish a uniform commercial code system'' which can be used
to resolve commercial disputes in fair and equitable ways in
tribal courts.\25\ With access to capital highlighted as one of
the most prevalent problems for tribal economic development,
the need to address the legal infrastructure issues is a
significant priority. Various tribal court programs provide
funding for code development, but these are usually designed to
address criminal justice needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\Access to Capital in Indian Country. Statement of Derrick
Watchman, at 4-9.
\25\Id. at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rather than divert resources designed to build tribal
criminal justice capacity, the Committee turned to the social
and economic development programs authorized by the Native
American Programs Act to assist in developing the legal
infrastructure necessary for increasing access to capital.
Mr. Watchman further testified that ``[s]trategic clarity
(with strategies that are aligned with community ideals and
backed with community support)'' is an important consideration
for tribal policymakers in facilitating economic development.
To that end, S. 1116 prioritizes the development of tribal
master plans for community and economic development as
authorized activities for the Native American Programs Act's
grant programs. The Harvard Project findings also suggest that
such master plans will be useful in promoting economic
development. The Project has found that ``successful economies
in Indian Country stand on the shoulders of culturally
appropriate governing institutions.''\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\Indian Tribal Good Governance Practices as they Relate to
Economic Development. Hearing before the S.Comm. Ind. Aff. July 18,
2001. Statement of Andrew Lee, at 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, the Native American Programs Act's grants neither
prioritized nor encouraged a focus on legal infrastructure
building or master planning for economic development purposes.
This legislation, S. 1116, would change this by restructuring
the priorities among the social and economic development grants
so that the following applications would receive priority
consideration: those that would provide technical assistance
related to building tribal court systems and codes; those that
develop Native CDFIs; and those that promote master planning
for economic development purposes.
Those priorities, however, would only extend to fifty
percent of the funding for the Act's social and economic
development programs. This is necessary to ensure that a
variety of economic development projects is funded through
these programs each year.
According to the officials of the Administration for Native
Americans, which administers the Native American Program Act's
grants, the current method for selecting grantees does not have
set percentages for different types of projects; nor does it
otherwise distinguish among them. Grants are awarded based only
on the number of points received during the assessment process.
Because there are so many applications, a priority
structure without caps based on project type could potentially
exhaust all funding on one or two types of projects, at the
expense of all other economic and social projects. By requiring
that only fifty percent of available grant funding be governed
by the bill's priority structure, S. 1116 can achieve its twin
ends of prioritizing the projects that research has shown are
most fundamental to increasing access to capital, and not
impeding other types of economic development projects.
Buy Indian Act. The bill would amend the Buy Indian Act to:
Facilitate agency compliance with the Buy
Indian Act's provisions when covered agencies, such as
the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and Indian Health
Services (IHS), engage in procurement; and
Require more accountability in implementing
this Act.
The Buy Indian Act was enacted in 1910. The Bureau of
Indian Affairs ``has obtained services and supplies from Indian
sources using the Buy Indian Program since 1965, based on
policy memoranda and acquisition.''\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\78 F.R. 34266 (June 7, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2013, the Bureau of Indian Affairs issued regulations to
``describe uniform administrative procedures that [the agency]
will use in all of its locations to encourage procurement
relationships with eligible Indian Economic Enterprises in the
execution of the Buy Indian Act.''\28\ On the other hand, the
Indian Health Service, to which the Buy Indian Act also
applies, has yet to issue regulations governing its use of the
Buy Indian Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indian businesses and entrepreneurs have long expressed
concerns that both agencies have not fully or appropriately
implemented the Buy Indian Act, thereby denying a significant
amount of business to Indian entrepreneurs.\29\ Ms. Andrews-
Maltais testified that the ``Buy Indian Act is an important
component of the Department's goal of fostering and supporting
American Indian/Alaska Native entrepreneurship.''\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\See Economic Development: Encouraging Investment in Indian
Country.
\30\S.2285, S.3234, S.3261, and H.R. 4685. Hearing before the
S.Comm. Ind. Aff., September 7, 2016. Statement of Cheryl Andrews-
Maltais, at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the new BIA regulations have been issued to
improve such procurement, the Committee strongly believes that
legislative refinements are needed to ensure that the Buy
Indian Act will be implemented more fully and consistently
throughout both the BIA and IHS. The bill, S. 1116, codifies
several provisions of BIA's regulations, adds more training
requirements, and increases accountability for both agencies.
The Committee expects that the agencies will expeditiously and
consistently implement these provisions.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
In the 115th Congress, Senator Hoeven introduced S. 1116,
with Senator McCain as an original co-sponsor. The bill was
referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs. On May 17, 2017,
the Committee held a business meeting to consider the bill. An
amendment, proposed by Senator Cortez Masto, was adopted and
provided changes to the consultation procedures between the
Securities and Exchange Commission and Indian tribes. The
Committee ordered the bill, as amended, to be favorably
reported.
In the 114th Congress, Senator Barrasso introduced S. 3234,
with Senator McCain as an original co-sponsor. The bill was
referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs. On September 7,
2016, the Committee held a legislative hearing on the bill. Ms.
Cheryl Andrews-Maltais testified on behalf of the Department of
the Interior in support of the bill and recommended technical
refinements for the bill.
On September 21, 2016, the Committee held a business
meeting to consider S. 1116. Senator Barrasso offered a
substitute amendment which included a number of technical or
clarifying changes to:
the findings in Section 2 of the bill;
the duties of the Director in Section 3;
the position responsible for interagency
coordination in Section 3;
the permanent waiver of the cost sharing
requirement for Native CDFIs in Section 3; and
the reporting requirements under the Buy
Indian Act in Section 4.
The substitute amendment also made conforming changes to
the definitions in Section 3 of the bill by striking the
definitions of ``Fund'' and ``Native community development
financial institution'' and clarifying ``Native community
development financial institution''.
For the interagency coordination initiatives in Section 3,
the substitute amendment:
included Indian organizations with
experience in providing entrepreneurial training as
participants in these initiatives;
required the agencies to work with the
Authority established in 2000 to identify barriers to
increasing investments and economic measures in Indian
communities; and
required a report (every 3 years) to
Congress regarding improvements to Indian communities
from these initiatives.
The amendment additionally made the following changes:
Replaced the Indian Economic Development
Fund with a GAO study on federal capitalization
programs, capital needs and demand in Indian
communities, extent of and comparison between Indian
and non-Indian use of these programs;
Struck the definition of ``Fund,'' and
clarified the definition of ``Native Community
Development Financial Institution'' in Section 3;
Struck the Indian Trader Act provisions
from the bill; and
Capped the amount of grant funding
authorized under the Native American Programs Act to be
governed by S. 1116's priorities at fifty percent.
It struck the Indian Trader Act provisions from the bill.
For the grant priorities under the Native American Programs
Act social and economic development grants, the substitute
amendment set a cap of fifty percent of the total amount of the
funding for these grants to be used for the priorities set
forth in the bill.
The amendment was adopted, and the Committee ordered the
bill, as amended, to be favorably reported. The Congressional
Budget Office did not issue a cost estimate prior to the end of
the 114th Congress. No further action was taken on the bill.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Section 1. Short title
Section 1 sets forth the short title of the bill as the
``Indian Community Economic Enhancement Act of 2017''.
Section 2. Findings
Section 2 states that Indian tribes must overcome many
barriers to bring industry and economic development to Indian
communities. These barriers include geographic location, lack
of infrastructure, lack of sufficient collateral and capital,
and regulatory bureaucracy. These barriers increase the costs
of doing business in Indian communities.
The federal government has an important government-to-
government relationship with tribes, and a role in facilitating
healthy and sustainable tribal economies. The input of tribes
is important for developing federal policies and programs
designed to assist Indian tribes and Indian entrepreneurs in
building tribal economies.
Tribal infrastructure needs repair, but access to private
capital is limited. Federal capital improvement programs, such
as loan guarantees and programs that facilitate tax-exempt bond
financing, can help build tribal infrastructure.
Tribes are not treated as states or local governments under
federal tax and regulatory law, which impedes their ability to
raise capital, invest, and benefit from other investment
incentives. As a result, investors may avoid financing in
Indian communities, making economic projects costly and
inaccessible. In order to facilitate private financing for
urgent development needs, federal loan programs specific to
Indian communities need support. Tribal trust or restricted
property cannot be held as collateral. Transactions involving
trust or restricted property, such as leases or rights-of-ways,
are subject to the Bureau of Indian Affairs' approval process
which adds delays or costs to projects.
Section 3. Community development
Section 3 amends the Native American Business Development,
Trade, Promotion, and Tourism Act of 2000 (25 U.S.C. 4301) by
clarifying policies, adding definitions, and creating two new
subsections. This section would ensure that the findings and
purposes of trade promotion and business development apply to
all Indian businesses, not just those that seek assistance
pursuant to this statute.
This section would add definitions for the ``Director''
(which is referenced but not defined in current law); ``Native
Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs)'' which
are CDFIs authorized under Section 103 of the Community
Development Banking and Financial Institutions Act of 1994
serving Indian reservations or tribes; and ``Office'' which is
the Office of Native American Business Development within the
Department of Commerce.
This section describes the role of the Director of the
Office of Native American Business Development, giving the
holder of that office significant responsibility. The Director
would report to the Secretary of Commerce, and serve as the
policy advisor on the trust responsibility and as the point of
contact for Indian tribes for Departmental programs. The
Director would be required to coordinate with all Department
offices and agencies to ensure there is an accountable process
for consultation regarding Departmental programs and policies.
This section also caps the amount of funding authorized for the
operations of this Office at $2 million per fiscal year.
This section adds a new Section 8 (25 U.S.C. 4307) to
Native American Business Development, Trade Promotion, and
Tourism Act of 2000, and would:
Require, not later than one year after
enactment, interagency coordination between the
Secretaries of Interior, Commerce, and Treasury to
develop initiatives
to encourage investments in
Indian communities, examine collateral
alternatives, and use tribal colleges to
provide entrepreneurial training;
to identify regulatory or legal
barriers to increasing such investments; and to
consult with Indian tribes regarding increasing
such investments;
Require, at least once every three years, a
report to Congress that details the impact of these
initiatives on Indian communities;
Require consultation between the Securities
and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Indian tribes on
statutory or regulatory changes needed for Indian
tribes to qualify as an accredited investor under SEC
regulations, so that Indian tribes have the ability to
withstand investment loss on a basis comparable to
other legal entities who are not natural persons; and
Require that the Government Accountability
Office conduct a study to assess current Federal
capitalization and programs that are available to
assist Indian communities with economic and community
development.
The study shall assess the
demand and utilization of each program, the
capital needs of Indian tribes and communities
related to economic development, and the extent
to which similar programs have been used to
assist non-Indian communities in comparison.
The GAO shall submit a report on
the findings of this study to the Senate
Committee on Indian Affairs and the House
Committee on Natural Resources not later than
18 months after the date of enactment.
Section 4. Buy Indian Act
Section 4 would amend the Buy Indian Act (25 U.S.C. 47) in
three substantive ways.
First, it would ensure that the Bureau of Indian Affairs
and the Indian Health Service consider the Buy Indian Act in
its procurement decisions by
Requiring the agencies to determine whether
procurement decisions would not be practicable and
reasonable; and
Clarifying that facilities construction is
also authorized for Buy Indian Act consideration.
In addition, this section would require
The Secretaries of Interior and Health and
Human Services to conduct outreach to Indian
businesses, provide training, and issue regulations;
Regional office data on implementation;
Procurement management reviews to include a
review of implementation of the Buy Indian Act; and
Consultations with various stakeholders on
how compliance with this statute can be harmonized with
other procurement goals.
This section would require a biannual report from the
agencies on implementation, including:
The names and efforts of each agency under
the respective Secretaries' jurisdiction and
Departments to which this Act applies;
A summary of the purchases;
Data on increases or decreases in usage;
Methods for conducting market searches for
qualified vendors;
A summary of deviations;
The total number and dollar amount of
contract awards;
Any administrative or legal barriers to
achieving the goals of the statute; and
Recommendations for legislative or
administrative actions to address the barriers.
Section 5. Native American Programs Act
Section 5 amends the Native American Programs Act of 1974
(42 U.S.C. 2991) in three substantive ways.
First, for economic development programs administered under
this Act, this section would authorize Native CDFIs to be
eligible grantees. It also creates a priority structure for the
grant assessment process, giving priority to those applicants
whose programs seek to develop tribal codes and court systems
relating to economic development; aim at developing nonprofit
subsidiaries or other tribal business structures; develop or
maintain CDFIs; or develop tribal master plans for community
and economic development and infrastructure.
Additionally, the Commissioner of the Administration for
Native Americans, who oversees the grant program, shall also
prioritize projects that fall into the above-mentioned
categories when providing technical advice.
Finally, this section reauthorizes the Act's grants for
fiscal years 2018 through 2022 at level funding.
COST AND BUDGETARY CONSIDERATION
The cost estimate for S.1116 as calculated by the
Congressional Budget Office, is set forth below:
June 22, 2017.
Hon. John Hoeven,
Chairman, Committee on Indian Affairs,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 1116, the Indian
Community Economic Enhancement Act of 2017.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Robert Reese.
Sincerely,
Keith Hall.
Enclosure.
S.1116--the Indian Community Economic Enhancement Act of 2017
S. 1116 would amend the Native American Business
Development, Trade Promotion, and Tourism Act of 2000 to
authorize appropriations to reorganize the Office of Native
American Business Development (ONABD) within the Department of
Commerce (DOC). That office would be required to serve as the
liaison between DOC and Indian tribes. The bill also would
authorize appropriations for the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) to provide development assistance to Native
American communities. Finally, the bill would require other
federal agencies to coordinate and implement initiatives to
encourage investment in Indian businesses.
CBO estimates that implementing S. 1116 would cost $139
million over the 2018-2022 period, assuming appropriation of
the authorized and necessary amounts. Enacting S. 1116 would
not affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-
go procedures do not apply.
CBO estimates that enacting the legislation would not
increase net direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of
the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2028.
S. 1116 contains no intergovernmental or private sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary effect of S. 1116 is shown in the following table.
The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 450
(community and regional development) and function 500
(education, training, employment, and social services).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2017-2022
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INCREASES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Department of Commerce:
Authorization Level.................. 0 2 2 2 2 2 10
Estimated Outlays.................... 0 1 2 2 2 2 9
Department of Health and Human Services:
Estimated Authorization Level........ 0 32 33 33 34 35 167
Estimated Outlays.................... 0 1 29 33 33 34 130
Total Changes:
Estimated Authorization Level.... 0 34 35 35 36 37 177
Estimated Outlays................ 0 2 31 35 35 36 139
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that S.
1116 will be enacted near the end of 2017, that the authorized
and necessary amounts will be appropriated for each fiscal
year, and that spending will follow historical patterns for
similar programs.
Department of Commerce
S. 1116 would authorize the appropriation of $2 million for
each fiscal year to ONABD and would require that the Director
of Native American Business Development serve as DOC's point of
contact with Indian tribes. Current law authorizes the
appropriation of whatever amounts are necessary annually for
ONABD operations; however, no funds have been appropriated for
such purposes since ONABD was originally authorized. CBO
estimates that implementing those provisions would cost $9
million over the 2018-2022 period for ONABD.
Department of Health and Human Services
The bill would authorize the appropriation of such sums as
may be necessary for social and economic development programs
under the Native American Programs Act of 1974 for each year
over the 2018-2022 period. S. 1116 also would slightly expand
the number of eligible institutions; prioritize applications
that seek assistance types of community and economic
development, and prioritize technical assistance for applicants
and grantees that seek assistance for those types of
activities.
The authorization of the social and economic development
grant programs under the Native American Programs Act of 1974
expired at the end of fiscal year 2002. However, the Congress
has continued to appropriate funds for those programs,
including about $32 million in 2017. Assuming continued
appropriations at that level and adjusting for anticipated
inflation, CBO estimates that implementing those provisions
would cost $130 million over the 2018-2022 period for HHS
programs.
Other requirements
The legislation also would require DOC, the Department of
the Interior, and the Department of Treasury to develop
coordinated initiatives to encourage investment in Indian
communities. Based on information from those departments, CBO
estimates that implementing those requirements would have no
significant cost in any year.
Pay-As-You-Go considerations: None.
Increase in long-term direct spending and deficits: CBO
estimates that enacting the legislation would not increase net
direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four
consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2028.
Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: S. 1116
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as
defined in UMRA. Tribal businesses would benefit from the
reauthorization of the Buy Indian Act. Such reauthorization
would allow the award of federal contracts to Indian-owned
businesses and bypass the standard competitive process. Tribal
governments would benefit from provisions in the bill promoting
private investment in Indian communities. Any costs to tribal
governments would result from complying with conditions of
assistance.
Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Robert Reese (DOC,
DOI, and Treasury), Jennifer Gray (HHS), Impact on state,
local, and tribal governments: Rachel Austin; Impact on the
private sector: Amy Petz.
Estimate approved by: H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT
Paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the
Senate requires that each report accompanying a bill to
evaluate the regulatory paperwork impact that would be incurred
in implementing the legislation. The Committee has concluded
that enactment of S. 1116 will create only de minimis
regulatory or paperwork burdens.
EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS
The Committee has received no official communications from
the Administration on the provisions of this bill.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
In compliance with the Standing Rules of the Senate and the
Committee Rules, subsection 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing
Rules of the Senate is waived. In the opinion of the Committee,
it is necessary to dispense with subsection 12 of rule XXVI of
the Standing Rules of the Senate in order to expedite the
business of the Senate.