Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?
                                                       
                                                       
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.