Senate Indian Affairs: Business meeting

Good afternoon, everyone. Committee comes to order. Today the committee will consider S.5354, the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Modernization Act of 2026. This is legislation that I've introduced with Vice Chairman Schatz to reauthorize and modernize the primary federal housing law that serves Native communities. Last week, the committee held a hearing on S.5354 and on housing needs in Native communities more broadly.

We received important testimony from Deputy Principal Chief Brian Warner of the Cherokee Nation, Hilary Atkin from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and Dr. Alicia Puente Cackley from the Government Accountability Office. One thing was clear from that hearing, and that is that Congress needs to act. The testimony highlighted both the significant housing needs facing Native communities and opportunities to improve the way federal housing programs operate. I'm going to be offering an amendment to make a couple of small changes to the bill. First, it would raise NAHASDA's outdated $5,000 de minimis threshold to $22,500 and allow HUD to establish a higher amount for a good cause.

Second, it would make a technical correction to one of the bill's Native Hawaiian homelessness provisions. S.5354, as amended, will reauthorize and modernize NAHASDA, which for nearly 30 years has served as the cornerstone of federal housing assistance in Indian Country. The bill recognizes that housing challenges look very different from one Native community to another. In Alaska, we routinely hear about overcrowding, extraordinarily high construction costs, homelessness, and difficulties that communities face in providing housing for teachers, healthcare workers, law enforcement officers, and other essential workers who are making a little too much to qualify for some assistance programs. This legislation responds to these challenges and reflects extensive bipartisan work and engagement with Native communities.

So I appreciate Vice Chairman Schatz, our colleagues for their continued partnerships, as well as everyone who has contributed to the strong legislative record that we have developed. So I'm hopeful that we will advance this very important legislation today. I'll now turn to the Vice Chairman for his opening comments. Thank you, Chair Murkowski, for convening today's business meeting. What an important purpose it is to advance our new NAHASDA reauthorization and modernization effort to the full Senate.

For Native families, housing isn't just shelter, it's the foundation for everything else: their health, their children's education, a steady job, and the chance to build a life close to home and culture. Right now, too many families in Indian Country, Alaska, and Hawaii are waiting, doubling up, or going without. And that's why NAHASDA matters so much. For 30 years, it has delivered billions of dollars to tribes and Native Hawaiians, and it has worked because it puts decisions in the hands of the communities that know their needs best. But NAHASDA's programs have not been reauthorized or updated in 13 years, and this uncertainty impacts how and whether Native communities plan and build for the long term.

Reauthorizing this law is not a new idea. And it is not a partisan one either. In '23, we advanced NAHASDA to the full Senate, uh, with a vote of 86 to 11, and on the 2024 National Defense Authorization Act. S.5354 picks up where that bipartisan work left off. It reauthorizes the Indian Housing Block Grant Program and the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant Program through 2033 and cuts red tape.

It also gives tribes and Native Hawaiians the tools that they ask for. From lease-to-own pathways to stronger loan guarantees and support for Native veterans and unhoused American Indians, Native Hawaiians, and Alaska Natives. This modernization effort will help to make homeownership and stable housing a reality for more Native families in their homelands. I urge my colleagues to support this bill so we can pass NAHASDA out of the Senate for a second time. Thank you, Vice Chairman.

We are still waiting the arrival of one more member, uh, so that we have a quorum to constitute business. If there are any members who wish to make any comments about NAHASDA, this would be an ideal time so that you don't have to do it afterwards.

Senator Smith, I knew you would oblige. I generally don't favor the filibuster, Madam Chair, but I would like to just take the opportunity while we're all here to just thank you and Chair Schatz— Vice Chair Schatz for work on this, and I know I hear from Minnesota tribal nations all the time the importance of reauthorizing this. It is really an act of good faith that Congress takes this step forward. Tribal nations around the country and certainly in Minnesota look to us to pass this bill as a sign that we truly do take our trust and treaty responsibility seriously and that we understand fully our obligations as the government of the United States of America to live up to those obligations. So I I hope that we can not only get a quorum to pass this out of committee, but that we can find a path forward all the way through the Senate and the House to do this important reauthorization.

Thank you, Senator Smith. I think it's important to note, and it was acknowledged at the hearing last week, that following on the Road to Housing that was signed into law, to make sure that we are doing right, as you say, Senator Smith, on our tribal trust responsibilities when it comes to the issue of housing. So this is more than timely, as is the arrival of Senator Cantwell. We now have a quorum present so we can get started. I would ask— we'll start with the amendment that I have filed to S. 5354.

So I would ask unanimous consent to take up Murkowski Amendment MR MIR 26808 to agenda item number 1, S5354. Is there an objection? Hearing no objection, the question is on agreeing to this amendment by voice vote. All those in favor say aye. Aye.

Any opposed say nay. The ayes appear to have it. They do. The amendment is agreed to. I now ask unanimous consent to take up agenda item number 1, S5354, Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Modernization of S.5354, as amended.

Is there any objection? Hearing no objection, the question is on agreeing to agenda item number 1, S.5354, as amended. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any nays?

The ayes appear to have it. They do. The bill is agreed to. Are there any members wishing to be recorded otherwise? Seeing none, that concludes our business meeting for today.

And I appreciate the patience of colleagues and the the interruption from other business that you were doing so we can conduct this very, very important message. So that concludes our business meeting.

And I'm going to invite up to the table our witnesses today as I begin my statements. Thank you.

We will call to order this committee hearing. We are here today to receive testimony on 4 bills. First on the agenda is S.1750, the Porch Band of Creek Indians Parity Act. This is introduced by Senator Britt. The bill would provide a tribe-specific fix to the uncertainty created by the U.S. Supreme Court decision Incarcieri v. Salazar.

Specifically, the bill would expressly apply the Indian Reorganization Act to the Porch Band of Creek Indians, reaffirm the validity of the tribe's existing trust lands, and confirm the Secretary of the Interior's authority under the IRA to take additional lands into trust for the tribes in the future. S.3859, introduced by the late Senator Lindsey Graham, would amend the Catawba— Catawba? Catawba. Thank you for that. Catawba Indian Tribe of South Carolina Lands Claim Settlement Act of 1993 to remove federally imposed restrictions on future tribal membership and allow the Catawba Nation to determine its own membership requirements.

And then we have S4053 that's introduced by Senator Padilla, which would take approximately 860 acres of land in Southern California currently managed by the Bureau of Land Management into trust for the Pechanga Band of Indians. The land is adjacent to the Puezka Mountain, which is sacred to the tribe and is also held in trust. The lands transferred under the bill would be maintained as open space and managed to preserve archaeological, cultural, and wildlife resources. And then finally, we have H.R. 226, Which is the Eastern Band of Cherokee Historic Lands Reacquisition Act.

This is sponsored by Congressman Chuck Fleischmann. It would take approximately 76 acres of federal land managed by the Tennessee Valley Authority along with approximately 20 acres of permanent easements along the shores of the Little Tennessee River and the Tellico Reservoir in Monroe County, Tennessee. Taking it into trust for the benefit would be used to memorialize and interpret the history and the culture of the Cherokee people in the lower Little Tennessee River area. So I want to thank our witnesses for traveling here today. We look forward to your testimony, and I'll now turn to the Vice Chair for his opening statement.

Thank you, Chair Murkowski, for convening today's hearings on— hearing on 4 bills, all of which support and enhance tribal sovereignty and self-governance. I want to briefly comment on Carcieri v. Salazar and reiterate my support for a legislative fix for all tribes, but I also recognize that after more than 17 years of Congress not taking action, tribes like the Porch Band are starting to seek individual fixes to address urgent concerns that prevent the full exercise of their economic self-determination. Senator Britt's bill would align with successful past efforts at tribal-specific legislation, and I look forward to learning more about it and to hearing from the BIA about its views. Thank you to our witnesses for being here today. Thank you, Senator Padilla.

Welcome to the committee. I understand that you would like to make remarks regarding your bill. Yes, thank you, Chairman Murkowski and Vice Chairman Schatz, not just for having me but for including the Pechanga Band of Indians Land Transfer Act as part of today's hearing. And appreciate the opportunity to come and address the committee about the bill. First, I want to recognize my longtime friend, Chairman Mark Makaro of the Pechanga Band of Indians, who will be testifying today.

And I want to give too much of the pitch and the need for the bill and steal his thunder. But let me recognize Chairman Makaro as a tremendous leader, not just of the Pechanga Tribe and throughout California, but for Indian Country nationally. He's currently serving as president of the National Congress of American Indians. Now, since time immemorial, Pechanga has been a dedicated steward of the land and water resources in the Temecula Valley. After nearly 100 years of colonization, though, the tribe's population was decimated by disease, starvation, and cultural separation in the 19th century.

And when the reservation was created in 1882, it only included a small fraction of the vast ancestral homeland that stretches several hundred square miles. Continuing their commitment to stewardship, however, the tribe has worked in recent years to unify isolated parcels of land adjacent to the reservation in order to better protect, preserve, and restore sacred sites. In 2012, for example, the tribe purchased, uh, Puezca Mountain, which you referenced, Madam Chair, one of the most sacred places in the Luiseño religion. This followed a years-long fight over a proposed open-pit mine that would have decimated the mountain and stripped it of its cultural significance and physical beauty. The tribe was able to place that land into trust in 2015, and it has also since been listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

The bill on the agenda today would continue the tribe's stewardship by placing 860 acres of Bureau of Land Management land in Riverside County into trust for the Pechanga Band of Indians. This would consolidate most of Puesca Mountain into tribal trust land, allowing Pechanga to manage this land as open space improve environmental monitoring, and conduct active resource management on the mountain. This bill has secured bipartisan support. Congressmember Darrell Issa, Republican House member from California, leads the companion bill which passed the House on suspension in June. The bill is also supported by the City of Temecula and the National Congress of American Indians.

So thank you again, Madam Chair. Mr. Vice Chair, for your work on this committee and allowing me to testify, requesting support of this measure. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Padilla. We are also joined on the committee today by Senator Britt.

It's good to have you here as an advocate for, for the Porch Band and happy to hear your opening statement. Thank you so much. I really appreciate the opportunity, Chair and Vice Chair, and appreciate the work that you do for so many across our country. Today, I am honored to be here to introduce my friend Stephanie Bryan, the tribal chair and CEO of the Porchband Creek Indians. Stephanie, it's an honor to introduce you.

You are a force and have been a force for good within our state. To watch your business acumen, to watch your heart, to watch you get into every single possible position you can to do better for the people of our state and the people that you have the honor of serving and representing has, um, been truly incredible. Chairwoman Bryan is here to discuss my bill, S.1750, the Porch Band of Creek Indians Parity Act. This bill is intended to clarify that the Porch Band of Creek Indians should be considered as now under federal jurisdiction for the purposes of the Indian Reorganization Act. The Poarch Band of Creek Indians is a critical part of Alabama's culture and heritage.

As a leader of the Poarch Nation, Chairwoman Bryan has demonstrated an unwavering commitment to advancing key tribal issues while working extensively with each level of government to address unique challenges by using her various positions on many national boards, state boards, her advocacy for tribal issues has become well known across the entire country. In Alabama, her dedication to service and community is truly incredible. Under Chairwoman Bryan's leadership, the tribe has delivered on its goals to provide better quality health care and even created an assisted living facility for its tribal elders. It built a Boys and Girls Club that serves over 500 children. Makes targeted investments in higher education for tribal members, and has donated millions to charitable organizations that focus on building a stronger community.

And those are just a few of the things. In 2024, Business Alabama recognized her as the publication's first ever CEO of the Year. This is a testimony to her leadership and her ability to identify and take advantage of innovative opportunities. Chairwoman Bryan's business acumen and effective leadership have resulted in exponential growth for the Poarch Creek Indians business portfolio, which supports the Department of War, NASA, and a wide range of other industries. Chairwoman Bryan, thank you so much for testifying here today.

We are certainly grateful for your service to the state of Alabama, our nation, and your tribe. I urge all of my colleagues to support this measure. It's long overdue. Thank you, Chairwoman. Thank you, Senator Britt.

Appreciate you. We will now turn to our witnesses. We have with us today Mr. Brian Mercier. Mr. Mercier is the Director of the BIA at the Department of the Interior and a frequent testifier here before the Committee. Welcome back.

As Senator Britt has very ably introduced, we have the Honorable Stephanie Bryan, the Chairwoman of the of the Porch Band of Creek Indians. We also have the Honorable Patricia Leach, who is the Assistant Chief of the Catawba Nation Rock Hill in South Carolina. I apologize for my mispronunciation here today. We also have Mark Makaro, the Chairman of the Pechongo Band of Indians. Mr. Makaro, you too are a frequent flyer here in the committee.

We appreciate your leadership. And the Honorable Michael Hicks is the Principal Chief of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians from North Carolina. Again, welcome to the committee. We do have your full written testimony as part of the official hearing record. We'd ask that you try to keep your comments to less than 5 minutes so that we do have opportunity for questions.

Mr. Mercier, if you want to lead off our panel today, thank you. Thank you, Chairman McCauskey. Chairman McCauskey, Chairman, Vice Chairman Schatz, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss legislation affecting tribal nations. My name is Brian Mercier, an enrolled member of the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon, and I am joined today by fellow Oregonian Lucia Crespo sitting behind me. She is a student at the University of Southern California in history and political science.

And, uh, is the daughter of a friend of mine that I played soccer with for many, many years. So I'm really honored to have her behind me supporting me here today. I mean, I am curious if she's going to support the USC Trojans or the Oregon Ducks this weekend, so I'm going to ask her afterwards where she's at on that. Madam Chairman, I serve as the Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs at the United States Department of the Interior. The BIA carries out the federal government's trust and treaty responsibility across 56 million acres of trust land held for federally recognized tribes and individual American Indians.

Through our programs and partnerships, we work to strengthen, strengthen tribal sovereignty, promote self-determination, and support the sustainable economic development and stewardship of tribal lands and resources. I'm here today to discuss 4 bills that would affect tribal lands, land claims, and tribal communities. The first bill, S.3859, a bill to amend the Catawba Indian Tribe of South Carolina land Claims Settlement Act of 1993. The second bill is S. 1750, Porch Band of Creek Indians Parity Act. Third bill is Senate 4053, a bill to take certain land in the state of California into trust for the benefit of the Pechanga Band of Indians.

And the final bill being H.R. 2226, Eastern Band of Cherokee Historic Lands Reacquisition Act. As each of those bills is a mouthful, I'm going to refer to them by their numbers going forward. I appreciate the indulgence of the committee. First, uh, Senate Bill 3859.

The department supports 3859, which amends the 1993 Catawba Land Claim Settlement Act. The bill would remove the requirement under current law that after establishment of the tribe's base membership rule, a person may be eligible for membership only if the individual is a lineal descendant of a person on the base membership role and has maintained political relations with with the tribe. Membership criteria are fundamental to inherent tribal sovereignty. S.3859 removes that requirement, modernizing tribal enrollment in line with self-determination without altering the tribe's land base, federal funding, or government-to-government relationship. Next, S.1750, um, the Indian Rural Organization Act, provides the Secretary of— with the discretion to acquire land into trust.

Promoting tribal sovereignty and self-determination. Under the Supreme Court's Carsiery v. Salazar decision, that authority is limited to tribes under federal jurisdiction in 1934. Making these determinations requires substantial time and resources, creating ongoing administrative burdens and uncertainty across Indian Country. S. 1750 designates the Porch Band of Creek Indians as having been under federal jurisdiction in 1934, and ratifiers ratifies prior trust acquisitions. We recognize the tribe's interest in obtaining certainty regarding its lands.

However, the department notes that the impacts of the DeCarcieri decision extend beyond any single tribe and raises broader questions regarding the Secretary's land-into-trust authority under the Indian Reorganization Act. The department supports a comprehensive legislative solution related to the Secretary's authority to take land into trust for tribes and welcomes the opportunity to work with the committee to discuss potential legislative approaches to provide greater clarity and certainty in the broader land-into-trust process. Congress, in exercising its plenary authority over Indian affairs, has the authority to evaluate and amend the Indian Reorganization Act, including determining whether the Secretary's existing land-into-trust authority should be clarified, expanded, or otherwise modified. The department looks forward to working with the committee and the bill sponsors and the tribes on these important issues. Next, Senate Bill 4053.

On Senate Bill 4053, the bill directs the transfer of approximately 1,261 acres of BLM lands in Riverside County, California into trust status for the Pechanga Band of Indians while prohibiting gaming on those lands. These lands encompass sacred sites, wildlife corridors, and open space vital to the tribe's cultural heritage and identity. The department recognizes the intent of 4053 as consistent with our trust responsibilities and federal policies promoting self-determination, and we look forward to working with the sponsor and the committee on effective implementation.

Finally, H.R. 226. The department supports H.R. 226, Which directs the transfer of approximately 76 acres of federal land managed by the Tennessee Valley Authority in Monroe County, Tennessee into trust for the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians. These parcels hold profound cultural, religious, and historical significance.

The bills preserve critical TVA flow easements and guarantees public access, and the department stands ready to execute the trust conveyance upon enactment. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today, and I welcome any questions you may have. And I apologize for going over. Just barely. You're pretty well, pretty well practiced.

Thank you. Appreciate that. And next we will hear from Chairwoman Bryan. Welcome. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Murkowski, Vice Chair Schatz, and members of the committee.

My name is Stephanie Bryan, and I'm honored to serve as the chair and CEO of the Poarch Band of Creek Indians, the only federally recognized tribe in Alabama. I greatly appreciate the opportunity to testify today about the Poarch Band of Creek Indians Parity Act. Here with me today are Vice Chair Robbie McGee, Council Member Christina Flint Lowe. I would also like to thank Senator Britt for her kind introduction and her efforts on our behalf. We also thank Senator Tuberville for his strong support.

I applaud the Interior Department's support for a national carciary fix. Our tribe has been a leading advocate for a national fix for 17 years to clarify that the Indian Reorganization Act applies to all federally recognized tribes. Until then, our tribe, like others, has been forced to take a different approach by working with our congressional delegation to clarify that the IRA applies to us. Today, we're blessed to be able to provide our tribal citizens and neighbors with essential services that include police, and fire protection, healthcare, elder care, education, and infrastructure. We've made careful decisions about how best to use our resources, but we have a limited land base, and at this point, we can't meet the growing needs of our citizens.

We are thankful that our tribal citizens want to come home, but we have more of a demand for housing and other infrastructure than we have land. For example, in 2018, it became clear that we needed to expand our Boys and Girls Club, but there was no more buildable trust land, and we were forced to fill in the ponds around the community center at a cost of more than $1 million. Also, our people— Our people grow older. We need more land to provide quality healthcare for our elders, including memory care and nursing home facilities. We're not alone.

Tribal governments nationwide have a shortage of usable trust land and seek to acquire trust lands to meet basic needs of our people. The Supreme Court's 2009 Cartieri decision upended the Interior Department's land-into-trust process. That decision placed a cloud of uncertainty over tribal trust lands, impeding investment and economic development in Indian Country, and it's led to a lot of frivolous lawsuits challenging, challenging the status of these trust lands. The tribe has already spent more than $10 million to defend ourselves against meritless attacks on our sovereignty. Thankfully, every court reviewing these frivolous, costly cases has upheld the status of our lands, which the Interior Department placed into trust more than 4 decades ago.

However, these lawsuits have taken a real toll, and that's why our tribe is seeking a legislative solution that will provide us with much-needed certainty. Those frivolous lawsuits have not just hurt us. They've cost taxpayer dollars because the Interior Department and Department of Justice have had to use their budgets to defend our trust lands. Our bill affirms that the IRA applies to our tribe, and it allows us to be treated fairly like other federally recognized tribes. This bill has strong support from the Alabama congressional delegation and the cities and counties that surround us.

I respectfully ask the committee to mark up S.1750 and pass the bill before the end of the year. On behalf of the tribe, I'm honored to speak with you today, and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Mado.

Thank you, Chairwoman. Next, we will hear from Patricia Leach, Assistant Chief.

Good afternoon, Chairman McCauskey, Vice Chairman Schatz, and members of the committee. On behalf of the Catawba Indian Nation, I want to thank the committee for holding this hearing and for considering S. 3859, a bill to amend the Catawba Lands Claim Settlement Act of 1993. I want to thank Congressman Ralph Norman, who led the House companion bill, H.R. 4460. And the members of Congress in the House that passed that version of the bill by voice vote.

That bipartisan House action confirms what the nation has said from the beginning. This is a narrow, straightforward bill that restores tribal sovereignty for the Catawba Nation and grants us the same authority over our tribal membership that nearly every other tribal nation enjoys.

Finally, we are especially grateful to the late Senator Lindsey Graham, who recognized the importance of this legislation legislation and urged in a June 29th letter that this committee add S.3859 to its business meeting agenda. S.3859 strikes an outdated portion of a single sentence from our 1993 Settlement Act. That clause currently prevents the nation from enrolling any new citizen unless that person is of lineal descent of an individual on the 1962 final roll and has maintained continued political relations with the tribe. If enacted, the bill would restore to the Catawba Indian Nation the authority to determine its own citizenship criteria under its Constitution. That authority is one of the most basic attributes of sovereignty respected by the federal government for virtually all tribal nations.

The bill does not rewrite the Catawba Nation's Constitution, does not create any new federal program, and does not affect any other provision of the Settlement Act. Congress enacted the Settlement Act in 1993 to resolve the nation's longstanding land claims, restore the federal trust relationship, and provide for a monetary settlement. The federal enrollment language in Section 7 was included to identify a fixed number of individuals entitled to share in settlement-related distributions and provided an administratable federal standard for the Act. Those monetary distributions were completed decades ago, vacating the need for a fixed membership standard, and today we are hamstrung by a membership requirement that is needlessly restrictive. The provision also includes the phrase "continued political relations." A standard that is undefined in the act and difficult to administer.

Tribal staff must determine whether an applicant has demonstrated a sufficient political connection to the nation, even though that standard is not clearly defined by Congress. Removing this language will allow the nation to administer citizenship through its own constitution and laws rather than through an outdated federal mandate, mandate that most other tribal nations do not have. We understand that members may ask whether this bill would create an unchecked expansion of enrollment. It will not. The Catawba Constitution remains in full force and will continue to govern citizenship.

Under that Constitution, membership is tied to Catawba ancestry, requiring supporting documentation and, where appropriate, DNA verification. Those requirements are strict and enforced by the Nation under its established enrollment process. Over the past several years, the Nation has enrolled approximately 200 new citizens per year. Denials based on the federal clause have been rare. Most rejections result from a lack of documentation or DNA results disproving claimed parentage.

For that reason, the bill is not expected to meaningfully alter the nation's overall enrollment trajectory, but it will allow the nation to formally recognize individuals deserving of Catawba citizenship. To conclude, S.3859 is a narrow bill with an important precedent. It removes an outdated federal restriction that no longer serves the purpose for which it was enacted and restores to the Catawba Indian Nation the authority to determine its own citizenship under its constitution. This bill is consistent with the longstanding federal policy of tribal self-determination and with the principle that tribal nations should decide who belongs to their own political community. We respectfully urge the committee to support S.3859 and move it forward.

Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I'd be pleased to answer any questions. Thank you, Assistant Chief. We'll next turn to Chairman McCarl. May you yam palov awachamke. Good afternoon, Chairman Murkowski, Vice Chairman Schatz, and members of the committee.

My name is Mark Makaro, and I'm the current tribal chairman for the Pechanga Band of Indians in Southern California. And thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of S.4053. I want to begin by thanking Senators Padilla and Schiff, as well as our Congressman Darrell Issa, Padilla and Schiff for introducing the bill, and Congressman Issa for leading the House companion, which is H.R. 5682. The House passed that measure by voice vote on June 2nd.

We respectfully ask this committee to advance S.4053 so Congress can complete this land restoration effort this year. S.4053 would take approximately 860 acres of federal land administered by the BLM into trust for the Pechanga Band of Indians. This parcel is in Riverside County. It's next to our existing trust land reservation lands on Pooeska Mountain. You said the name of that mountain earlier just perfectly, I want to note.

It would become part of our reservation. For Pechanga, this is a matter of protecting a sacred place and restoring our responsibility for part of our ancestral homeland. Our people, we now call ourselves, we refer to ourselves using our original name of Payomkawachum, and the older term is Luceno, which we no longer use. We have called the Temecula Valley home for over 10,000 years, and I would note that today's hearing falls on the anniversary date to the day of the bands of our ancestors' forced removal from one of our ancestral villages. In fact, it was our last ancestral village in 1875 when 20 armed men arrived at that village and they forced all our people out of our homes at gunpoint and threw our belongings onto wagons.

They forced our ancestors to walk behind these wagons while throwing stones at them and marched the procession down 2 to 3 miles away from that village to land which we have since brought back into our reservation. But they dumped our people and our belongings there. So that's called the Temecula Eviction, took place in 1875 under a decree of ejectment from a federal court in San Francisco.

They led us to the boundaries of a rancho that belonged to a man named John McGee. He was a local rancher. And thankfully Mr. McGee allowed our people, the evictees, to live near his house. He had an adobe house and there was a spring there. And that spring kept our people alive, the Tavishpa Spring.

But all our homes, our crops, our orchards, our cattle, our livestock, everything had been taken or burned at the village site. So we had nothing at that point in time. Our people had to rebuild brush homes and live in there, in the brush homes, and live off the land, deer, small game, other fruits of the land. And then nearly 8 years later in 1882, President Chester Arthur issued the executive order that set aside the lands that would establish Pechanga Reservation. And shortly thereafter, Pechanga families moved from the spring adjacent to Mr. McGee's ranch and moved on to Pechanga Reservation and near a spring on that piece of land called Pecha'a.

The Pecha'a Spring is the namesake for Pechanga and it means place where the water drips is the name of that spring. So I tell you this story not because I want your sympathy but because I want you to see how our people have persevered through these things with determination and resilience. Not only to survive but thrive in the modern day. Now, Po'eska Mountain is among the most sacred places in our history. It's tied to our creation story, too long to go into here, and it's tied to knowledge that have been passed from our elders to our children across generations.

That sacred place once faced destruction in 2007. Granite Construction proposed a quarry, a massive open-pit mine, as you heard. We joined, Pechanga joined the City of Temecula and Save Our Southwest Hills, a local coalition, and fought the mine. We ultimately lost the permitting battle, but we were able to buy 364 acres in the center at the top of the mountain, and the mining company went away as a result of that purchase. I think I'm about to run out of time, so I'm going to skip ahead here.

Let me say that the Pechanga people, we have proximity. We have commitment. We have a deep connection to the lands in question. We will protect its cultural resources. We will preserve its open character.

We will support responsible fire and resource management and pass our knowledge of Puyallup on to future generations. Chairman Murkowski, Vice Chairman Schatz, and members of the committee, I respectfully ask you to approve Senate Bill 4053. And thank you for your consideration and for recognizing Pechanga's enduring connection to Puyallup. We would be honored to welcome you to Pechanga and show you this sacred place. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Chairman. And finally, we will hear from Principal Chief Hicks. Welcome. My Cherokee name is Woodcarver. There you go.

My Cherokee name is Woodcarver, . Thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 226. I come before you today as the Principal Chief of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians. I'm at the end of my fourth term I've worked on this issue for about 40 years of my career.

The lands we, we ask Congress to return are a small part of our ancestral homelands. They include Choctaw, once the political and cultural heart of the Cherokee people. Tennesse, which gave the state of Tennessee its name, and the birthplace of Sequoyah, who single-handedly created the Cherokee syllabary, our written language. These places are part of who we are, and that connection endured through the forced removal of thousands of Cherokee people from our homelands in the 1830s, where one-third of our people perished. The ancestors of the Eastern Band resisted removal, remained in these mountains, and found their way home because of their determination, and we are still here.

Today, the Eastern Band is a sovereign tribal nation. We have our own government, our language, a culture, a land base, and a perpetual responsibility to protect the places that remain important to our people. That responsibility did not end with the removal. Generations later, our people were called to defend these lands again. In 1967, the TVA began construction of the Tellico Dam on the Little Tennessee River.

The project would create a reservoir stretching more than 30 miles through the Little Tennessee River Valley, including historic Cherokee townsites of Chota and Tanasi, and lands connected to Sequoyah's birthplace. Our people opposed the project and warned that it would harm burial places, medicinal plants and areas, and cultural and historical places throughout the valley. Despite those efforts, the project moved forward, and in 1979, the Tellico Dam was completed and the reservoir flooded portions of our ancestral homelands. Of course, the damage was permanent. Places our ancestors had known for generations were changed forever.

In the years that followed, the Eastern Band continued working to protect these places and maintain our connection to them. We worked with the TVA, we invested in the Sequoia Birthplace Museum, which has served as an educational resource in Tennessee since 1986. We cared for these historic places and continue telling their story. Since the mid-1980s, the Eastern Band has managed most of the properties included in this legislation through permanent easements granted by the TVA. These lands would ultimately be placed into trust for our tribe, and we have continued working to get them back.

This effort did not begin with me, and it did not begin with this Congress. Tribal leaders before me have worked tirelessly toward the reacquisition of these lands. Our tribe has maintained these places, invested in them, and returned to Congress repeatedly seeking approval. H.R. 226 Would place approximately 76 acres of federal land managed by TVA in Monroe County, Tennessee, into trust for our tribe.

Those lands include the Sequoia Birthplace Museum and, and the Cho'den/Tenassee Memorial Site. The legislation also provides permanent easements for additional lands associated with Chota and Chota Tenasi homelands. But we do not measure the importance of these, these places in acres. We measure it in generations. Generations fought to protect these places, and generations of our people have worked to get them back.

When our children visit Chota, Tenasi, or the birthplace of Sequoia, I personally do not want them to see places only as somewhere Cherokees used to be. I want them to understand that they are standing on Cherokee land, and there is a difference. There are Cherokee people who fought for these places, who did not live to see them returned. There are tribal leaders who worked towards reacquiring them, who did not get to finish the job, this job. I think about them every day.

One day someone else will be— will serve in my capacity as Principal Chief. Our children will become our elders, and generations of Cherokee people will never meet with lives with the decisions we make today. I want them to inherit the story of this land that has been lost. This Congress cannot change what happened to our people. It cannot undo the removal.

And it cannot put back what was flooded by Teleco Dam. But this Congress can do something meaningful today. It can return these lands to our tribe, and with these lands of return, we will fulfill the responsibility that comes with this land. And I want to acknowledge the Bureau of Indian Affairs. I want to acknowledge the TVA and the relationships that we have built.

And it's taken decades to build strong relationships. To reacquire these lands. I know I'm getting close on time, but I want to say I also want to thank Congressman Fleischmann for stepping up. This bill has passed the House multiple times, and I'm here today to say, you know, from my heartfelt perspective and position, this has been 50 years since this promise has been made to our tribe, and Chairlady, I heard you last week saying, you know, with Nahasda and the housing, time is up. It's time for this to move forward and make things right.

And I appreciate everybody's time today, and I appreciate all the words that are spoken today. Many heartfelt words here today to regain lands that are so important to our people. Skee. God bless each one of you. Well said.

Thank you, Principal Chief. And I appreciate all of the comments from our tribal leaders here this afternoon.

It is clear that these are long, hard-fought efforts, and we hope to be able to provide some level of finality and clarity. Let me begin my comments— or my questions this afternoon directed to you, Director Mercier. Let's begin with the Porchband of Creek Indians Parity Act.

You have said in your written testimony, you've said here today that the department supports a comprehensive legislative solution to to clarify the land-into-trust authority. So does this mean that the department supports amending the IRA so that the Secretary may take land into trust for any federally recognized tribe regardless of whether or not that tribe was under federal jurisdiction back in 1934? Thank you for the question, Chairman. Potentially. I think we're mostly interested in having a conversation with the committee and at your request for technical assistance to explore what would be necessary to provide a universal comprehensive fix of the carcerary issue.

So it— so then what— I get what you're saying in terms of the back and forth with the committee. I understand that. Is there a preference for comprehensive legislative solutions? As opposed to then the tribe-specific legislation such as we have with 1730? Yes, Chairman.

There would be a preference for the comprehensive universal fix. I think our concerns would largely lie in the fact that if we were to move forward in a piecemeal fashion, we could inadvertently leave some tribes still out of that fix. There are a number of tribes that are impacted by this decision, and we feel the best path forward is to fix it for all of them.

So let me then ask you the question, Chairwoman Bryan. You have described the litigation that the Porch Band has faced over lands.

You've indicated that not only the legal uncertainty, I think you mentioned the Boys and Girls Club issue, also mentioned I think it was $10 million spent on litigation. So when you hear Director Mercier say we want to do the comprehensive long-term as opposed to tribal-specific, where does that put you and your efforts?

Our efforts still remain to do a comprehensive national fix. I mean, we've been leading the charge, as I stated, for 17 years, and we'll continue to support that. But at the same time, we have challenges that we've, you know, that we have faced legally. And this just provides clarity. If, you know, it's a port-specific bill, Unfortunately, in 17 years, we've not had luck with the national comprehensive passage for whatever reason.

And so therefore, in order to continue to meet the demands and the needs, such as lack of, you know, trust land for housing, nursing, skilled nursing programs, unfortunately, with the state of where things are, our people want to come home. And building more housing and meeting the needs of our tribal citizens is so important. And we have a large elder population that we care for. And as you all know, that it's prominent in Indian Native Americans, diabetes, heart issues, and we're starting to see a lot of people with dementia. So having land that we could build to assist our elders as well as housing with skilled nursing programs would be very beneficial for us and our tribe.

And we're hopeful that— and we'll continue to work and strive to work for a national fix. But unfortunately, at this time, nothing has passed. A national comprehensive fix has not passed. We recognize that, and that has, that has obviously been a challenge, as you point out, not only with the, the Porch but with other tribes as well. Let me, let me get one more question to you here, uh, Director Mercier.

This is regarding S.3859. You support— the department supports the bill. Are there any concerns that you may have that this change to the Catawba enrollment criteria could be used to disenroll current members or withhold memberships for any reasons beyond simply not meeting the criteria for enrollment? It sounded like you were pretty supportive of there, but are there any concerns that it could have unintended consequence? No, Chairman.

You know, we believe firmly that The tribal citizens, those determinations are made, that's inherent sovereignty and decision that each tribe makes on their own. So I would say that we don't have any concerns. And again, we very much honor and support that sovereign authority that a tribe has to determine its own citizenship. Great, thank you. Let me turn to the Vice Chair.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you to all the testifiers. Chairwoman Bryan, I understand the importance of addressing the Cartieri fix specifically for your tribe, but a full fix for Indian Country is also needed. I know you've said this before, I want to get it on the record. You support a full Cartieri fix?

Yes, sir, we support a full Cartieri fix, but also at the same time, another 17 years of getting, you know, nowhere. It's very difficult. I mean, with the Tens of millions of dollars we're spending in frivolous lawsuits. And we've, you know, we have overcome those issues, and— but it's costing the United States money as well every time we're in court because Department of Justice and Interior has to show up at those cases. So we definitely thank you for this time and— would really like for you guys to consider the—.

I got it. You need your bill regardless of whether or not we can get our act together. That's, that's, that's my question for Mr. Mersereau. Like, your testimony is a little opaque to me. It sounds as though what you're saying is that the administration supports a Cartieri fix.

Fine. I think everyone, mostly everybody on this committee, mostly everybody in this room does. Do you support this individual bill that would resolve this question for the Porch Band of Creek Indians? Thank you for the question, Vice Chairman. Again, you know, we support the universal fix, and I think that's a bold statement by this administration to actually go on the record here and support the comprehensive legislative fix.

On the individual bill before us today, I can't say more than we don't oppose, we don't support, but we would rather that our effort be put into a comprehensive fix for all tribes that are impacted by the Carsiary decision. I'm a little alarmed, but I'm gonna not make this wor— worse by putting a fine point on this. You're clearly, I think, probably going to have to do a little interagency work on the particulars of this bill, and you may not be in a position to say yes. So we'll just take this under advisement and work with Senator Britt and the chairwoman to get you to yes. And that is not a question.

I didn't mean that in an obnoxious way. And I accept that as the premise of it as well. Thank you, sir. Okay, got it. Chairman McCarrow, You testified that your sacred mountain was placed on the National Register of Historic Places as a traditional cultural property.

Why is the TCP category so important to tribal nations?

TCP, Traditional Cultural Place, um, is a more expansive way of talking about a sacred place and a sacred landscape versus simply a sacred place or a point on a map. What we found over the years, over the decades in sacred place and cultural resources advocacy trying to mitigate destruction, desecration and things like that, we often end up in front of agencies, hold up a map and say, you know, here's this mountain, it's a sacred place, Puyaska, and typically, you know, it'll be represented by a dot on a map. They try to work around it. Yeah, and we found that we were missing the forest for the trees, if you would. And so a TCP itself is a more expansive term because in our case here with Puyaska Mountain, it's where the first funeral of the first person in humanity passed away, and they had that first funeral on Puyaska Mountain.

But right below the north flank of the very same mountain is the birthplace of our people. And then our first ancestral village is adjacent to that. So there's this whole complex of cosmological creation that is embedded, that the landscape is. And so it's hard to define that by saying, well, here is a place name for your sacred place. The TCP is what is necessary to convey on paper or on a map, a digital map, exactly what we need.

And thank you, very helpful. Yeah. Okay. Um, uh, Mr. Mercier, um, the National NAGPRA Review Committee completed its FY25 report to Congress in November of last year. We have not received the report yet.

What's the status of the report? Yeah, thank you for the question, uh, Vice Chairman. I, I'll have to get back to you on that. Uh, the The NAGPRA Review Committee is a part of a different bureau within the Interior, but I'll take that back to the department. So next week, a reasonable time frame for you to get back to me?

I would assume so, yeah. I think next week we can—. I saw a nod, but it wasn't an enthusiastic—. We will get back to you. Okay.

It has—. It's been a while, and it is a statutory requirement. I also understand that the NOFO for NAGPRA grants has not been published. People are starting to freak out about this. Okay.

Um, uh, Can you figure out what's happening? I will do that for you, sir. Thank you. Thank you. Senator Armstrong.

Thank you, Chairwoman. First of all, great questions and answered several of the questions that I had today. But first of all, to Chairwoman Bryan, I know that the— that there's a court case in front of the 11th Circuit right now and curious of what we know right now about the timing of that and how that might affect the bill on this? I wish we knew the timing. It was 10 years before we heard anything before.

And it's one of those cases. Our bill has no impact on this lawsuit. Our lands were placed in trust over 40 years ago, and multiple courts have affirmed our existing trust lands. So this This legislation has nothing to do with this actual bill. We've prevailed before and feel strongly we will again.

But this bill will also show clarity, uh-huh, um, an interpretation of the Cartieri under federal jurisdictions. So this, this case has nothing to do with this bill. Okay. And I— it's good to see you again. And I know we got to visit on this earlier, and I'm not I'm not asking this in a confrontational way, to be clear about that.

I really am just trying to understand if the lawsuit didn't go your way, what impact that would have on this and whether this should be heard or not, because I really don't know the answer to that question.

Um, there's so many uncertainties. It's about interpretation. But as I said, we have won in the lower courts, and I feel strongly that will prevail Um, in this case at the district court. Okay. Or circuit court, I'm sorry.

Okay. Um, so I guess, you know, think maybe I'll turn to, uh, Mr. Mercier. What— how would you all view that in terms of acting Congress, asking Congress to take action on something while there's pending legislation?

Yeah, thank you for the question, Senator. Uh, I'm— to be honest, I'm not familiar with the, um, the, the litigation, um, and its potential impacts on that. I would need to consult with our solicitors to fully understand that. But in my testimony, both written and oral, we are supportive of moving forward on a comprehensive legislative, uh, solution. Yeah, okay, great.

Thank you. And then, uh, next question Sticking with you, Director Mercier, you know, Oklahoma has a lot of removed tribes, and I know there's issues and conflict now around burial grounds and ancestral sensitive places that have been disturbed or claimed to have been disturbed, and I'm curious I know there's no law today effectively protecting a tribe from efforts of another tribe, which is kind of strange from my perspective, but curious how your agency thinks about that and your department thinks about that issue and what could be done to make sure there's fair and reasonable notice amongst tribes. Yeah, that's a very good question, Senator, and what we are often asked to intervene or referee disputes between tribes over lands, and we often. We do our darndest to stay out of that and try to have the tribes as sovereigns themselves work through that. So what we typically do is we notify the Tribal Historic Preservation Officers of multiple tribes when we have an action, and we try to consult with all of them and resolve it amongst those THPOs and the State Historic Preservation Officer as well.

So we are best— we do our best to work diplomatically with all the tribes in a government-to-government basis to try to address their concerns, but We try not to be in the position of calling balls and strikes on some of those disputes if we can. And so who would you suggest should be calling balls and strikes? It seems like a pretty unresolved issue. If I got a lot of, you know, important tribal members and leaders here today, how would you suggest that does get resolved? Because it seems like a pretty sticky issue for the government to have rules about disturbing historical sites on the one hand, and on the other hand saying, well, it's tribe to tribe, we're not going to weigh in.

So I'm just— I'm wondering what the best way the tribes would suggest to try to deal with that. Is that to me, Senator? Yes. Yeah. So, I mean, we often go to the ACHP— so that was at the American Council on Historic Preservation— for their guidance on such similar situations.

So that would be something that we would probably look for guidance from them on. Okay. Chief, do you have any thoughts on that? Oh yeah, we don't have time for all of those, but I will say that the arbiters should be the tribes. When a tribal people tell you that a place is sacred, believe that.

Yeah. End of story. You get the government involved and things start to get convoluted. You get a predatory government involved and things go sideways. You have agendas and things like that that come into the picture.

But first and foremost, tribes know best. We know our land, we know our people, and we know what is sacred. And believe us when we say it. Yeah, well, I certainly do. My question is, it seems like there's an unresolved dispute now between the Muscogee Creek Tribe and the Poarch Tribe relative to to impact on some of those.

And I'd love for it to be resolved. I'm not sitting here saying who's right or wrong. I'm sitting here saying it seems like there's not really a good law or process to resolve it. And I don't disagree with you that it would be great if tribe to tribe could resolve it. I just don't see it getting resolved and would love to have a process to know that that could be solved.

So you are. I'm very anxious to have a comment here on the record. Because I myself personally have talked with them about carrying the torch to strengthen NAGPRA. When you have rules in place and you follow those, and, you know, as I said, I've offered to carry the torch to strengthen NAGPRA, which helps with, you know, protecting sacred grounds. And so to no resolve.

That's not happened. But, you know, I am a chairman that has inherited this issue, and I've been very passionate about resolving it to no avail. And, you know, it would be about like me telling Mark Makaro what he can do with his land in California. Like, that's not going to happen. And so this is a sovereignty attack on our sovereignty.

As the Poarch Band of Creek Indians, a federally recognized tribe in the state of Alabama, that has overcome many challenges. And we have truly created a tribe that truly come from poverty to prosperity. And we have created growth there where when I was a baby there, we were totally grant funded. And now maybe 10% of our budget is from grants. The rest is from our economic development, our hard work and And you have a lot to be proud of, and I'm not trying to take any of that away or condemn.

I simply am trying to say this seems like a dispute that doesn't have a good way for both parties to say, yes, we're comfortable with the way it's resolved. And I'd love for there to, you know, be that way. So, so I'm sorry to pick on a scab there, but I really would love to see that get resolved because I certainly hear it from our tribes in Oklahoma that they have sacred grounds. Okay. Thank you.

Yeah, thank you. That's all I have. Thank you. Sorry. No, thank you, Senator.

I appreciate that. I just have a few more comments here that I'd like to make sure we get out on the record.

Just finishing up with you, Director.

Regarding S4053, you supportive, want to ensure effective implementation. Do you have any concerns that could impact or have any issues about the implementation or the transfer? You feel we pass this, you're going to be able to implement it pretty pretty readily. Yeah, thank you, Chairman. Yeah, from our perspective, we, we don't have any technical concerns, and, and we would work with our colleagues at the Bureau of Land Management.

How long do you think it would actually take to, to— from, yeah, mandatory to fully transfer? What do you figure? Yeah, mandatory acquisitions move fairly quickly, but we would need to get with BLM, just get the survey and all that completed, the initial site assessment. There's, there are some steps that we need to complete, but I, I don't want to give rough estimate. But it's relatively easy.

It's fairly quickly, yeah. Okay. Let me turn to you, Assistant Chief Leach. In your written testimony, the— you explained that the federal enrollment language to get— seeking to get rid of what was mostly used to determine the number of individuals who would receive receive a share of the settlement funds. So you talked about all that.

You mentioned that these distributions are complete. Um, just want to confirm that there's no litigation that's still outstanding or any challenges as to how those funds were distributed that could be affected by, by this legislation. So is everything clear? Yes, ma'am, everything is clear. Great, so we don't need to worry about that.

Wonderful.

Yeah, you raised the issue of the phrase continued political relations and how a terminology like that that is not clearly defined creates its own set of issues and problems. So thank you for raising that. Chairman Makaro, you have talked about the significance of these lands and the responsibility of the tribe to manage and protect them for future generations. As you're— as the tribe is looking to develop plans for the lands, how do you intend to coordinate with either the neighboring communities? You mentioned coordinating with matters like wildfire response, but public safety, other shared needs, how do you work that?

Well, in essence, we're already doing that because, as you know, there's a portion of the reservation that's already contiguous with the lands in question. What we have right now is a patchwork of tribal land, county land, state land, BLM land, and when there's an issue in that area, our tribal rangers, for instance, if it's law enforcement They'll be among the first responders to illegal dumping or something that's going on up there like that. If it's an environmental issue, an issue of species, for instance, you know, by the way, this tract of land is part of— is extremely unique. It has extreme— it has pure indigenous flora and fauna on it that was untouched by either the Spanish— well, mostly the Spanish import of European animals. So all the plant life on this mountain, I guess because it's at elevation and it's not easy to— it wasn't farmable in the 1800s, it was spared.

And a piece of land about 5 miles away shares that distinction of having this unique flora and fauna on it because it didn't get farmed, didn't get ranched, cattle didn't chew up all the native vegetation. So, as a result, you know, it's extremely valuable environmentally. But, you know, our environmental department, for instance, has been proactively monitoring and trying to treat a pest that's been coming for the last 22 years in Southern California where oak trees are. It's the golden-spotted oak borer beetle. It's GSOB for short.

The GSOB beetle bores 10 holes or more in an oak tree and the tree dies. There's no saving it. And so our monitoring— there's thousands of oaks on our reservation, off our reservation, on this mountain, and we are already monitoring.

And so we will continue to do that. And that's one example of being proactive in terms of how we engage there. One last note, our fire department, Petronio Fire Department, is part of the California State Mutual Aid System. We're also part of the FEMA SAR team. And the wildland interface, the wildland urban interface that our fire department operates in, that's one of the response areas that we would get called to.

We have been called to during fires and wildland fires. So what we are already doing in terms of management, we would do it officially and continue to do that, but there would be less of a patchwork of jurisdictions. Good. Thank you for that. And Chief Hicks, I knew that this legislation has been a priority for a while.

I hadn't realized that you've been working on it for 4 decades. So that's a— That's a lifetime endeavor, and I know that you are truly looking forward to getting this over the finish line. And you mentioned Congressman Fleischmann. He has been dogged in reminding me that the House has done its job over there and the importance of being able to advance this.

I don't mean to be— I'm not making light of it, but what is this going to mean to you and to the tribe once this is complete? I was going to say, you know, now that you've got this done, what are you going to do? But seriously, what will the significance of finally resolving this after decades of pushing to advance it mean?

You know, if I could just simplify, and I've given a lot of thought to this, and again, you know, something that's been worked on really difficult, or, you know, over a long period of time, but if you just think about a piece of fabric and you think about, you know, the spiritual aspect of the fabric, you think about, you know, the graves, you think about the cultural sites, as you've heard today, and a piece of that fabric has been missing for decades. That's what it means to us. We're starting to regain, especially these areas that mean so much to our tribe. And as a tribal member, as an elder of the tribe now, to know that we can bring this back and our children can learn from those histories, whether good or bad, and they can go celebrate, you know, the memorials of former chiefs. They can know that in perpetuity that they can protect this former capital of our people.

That's what it means to us. And again, in comparison to, you know, touching 8 states historically, the Cherokee people did, This is, you know, just a drop in a bucket, but when you think about it from the perspective of what it means to us as a people, it's bigger than those 8 states. And so that's my response. Thank you. I'm glad I asked the question then.

I appreciate your response.

I appreciate the time each of you have given. Our tribal leaders, thank you. Thank you for making the trip to Washington, Washington, D.C. Director Mercier, thank you for handling some of these, again, matters that have been around for a long time. I think you have a committee here who is willing to work with you to help advance some of these legacy items. We would all like to see quicker resolution, whether it's what the Cherokee have been facing for 40 years, whether it's what the Porch Band have been working on for 17 legacy issues, but we wish that they were not quite as lengthy in time and duration because you've reminded us that while we try to navigate some of the politics of these issues, that for the people that are impacted, it is a very real, very personal part of who they are, their culture, their identity.

So let's keep working together. And with that, the committee stands adjourned. We will hold the committee record open for a couple weeks in case there's additional questions for the witnesses. With that, we stand adjourned.