INDIAN ISSUES
Agricultural Credit
Needs and Barriers to
Lending on Tribal
Lands
Report to Congressional Committees
May 2019
GAO-19-464
United States Government Accountability Office
______________________________________ United States Government Accountability Office
May 2019
INDIAN ISSUES
Agricultural Credit Needs
and Barriers to
Lending
on Tribal Lands
What GAO Found
Limited data are available on the needs of Indian tribes and their members for
agricultural credit, such as operating or equipment loans, to develop and expand
agricultural businesses on tribal lands. Federal regulations have generally
prohibited lenders from inquiring about the personal characteristics, such as
race, of applicants on nonresidential loans. Some tribal stakeholders and experts
said that tribal members may not have applied for agricultural credit because
they heard of other tribal members being denied loans. They said that tribal
members likely obtain agricultural credit from Department of Agriculture
programs or tribal lenders. Another potential source of agricultural credit is the
Farm Credit System (FCS), a government-sponsored enterprise that includes 69
associations that lend to farmers and ranchers.
Tribal stakeholders and experts reported a general lack of commercial credit on
tribal lands due to the following factors:
• Land use restrictions. Most tribal lands only can be used as loan
collateral in certain circumstances or with federal permission.
• Administrative process delays. Tribal members reported often
encountering delays obtaining necessary federal loan documents.
• Legal challenges. Lenders reported concerns about their ability to
recover loan collateral due to the unique legal status of tribes.
• Loan readiness. Tribal members may have no or poor credit histories
and be unfamiliar with the paperwork required for an agricultural loan,
such as a business plan.
FCS is authorized to provide a range of credit services to eligible agricultural
producers, which may include Indian tribes, tribal businesses, and tribal
members. FCS associations must obtain land as collateral for long-term real
estate loans, but are not required to do so for shorter-term loans, such as for
operating costs or equipment purchases. Some FCS associations GAO
contacted reported making loans to Indian tribes or their members. In a sample
of 11 FCS associations with tribal lands in their territory, eight said they have
loaned to tribes or their members in the past 2 years. GAO’s review of these 11
associations’ marketing plans and written responses to GAO follow-up questions
found that seven noted outreach—such as support for agricultural education
activities—targeted to tribes and their members. The other four reported broad
and general outreach efforts that also included minority groups.
To improve access to agricultural credit on tribal lands, stakeholders discussed
several options. For example, some stakeholders discussed the potential for
partnerships between commercial or government lenders and tribal lenders (such
as Native Community Development Financial Institutions) and increased use of
loan guarantees. Some stakeholders also discussed actions tribes could take to
ease barriers to lending, such as adopting their own leasing procedures to
reduce administrative processing time with federal agencies for certain loans.
Why GAO Did This Study
About 46 million of the 56 million acres
of the land that the federal government
holds in trust for the benefit of Indian
tribes and their members has an
agricultural purpose. However, tribal
agriculture and economic development
experts have noted that Indian tribes
and their members may need improved
access to agricultural credit.
Congress included a provision in statute
for GAO to review the ability of FCS to
meet the agricultural credit needs of
Indian tribes and their members on tribal
lands. This report describes (1) what is
known about the agricultural credit
needs of Indian tribes and their
members, (2) barriers stakeholders
identified to agricultural credit on tribal
lands, (3) FCS authority and actions to
meet those agricultural credit needs,
and (4) stakeholder suggestions for
improving Indians’ access to agricultural
credit on tribal lands.
GAO explored potential data sources on
Indians’ agricultural credit needs,
conducted a literature review, and
reviewed statutes and regulations
governing tribal lands and FCS. GAO
also reviewed the marketing plans and
written responses of a nongeneralizable
sample of 11 FCS associations whose
territories included tribal lands with high
levels of agricultural activity. GAO
interviewed stakeholders from a sample
of seven tribes (generally selected
based on tribal region and agricultural
activity), experts in tribal agriculture and
economic development (selected based
on relevant publications, Congressional
testimonies, and others’
recommendations), and representatives
from FCS and its regulator, the Farm
Credit Administration, and other relevant
government agencies.
View GAO-19-464. For more information,
contact
Alicia Puente Cackley at (202) 512-8678
or
cackleya@gao.gov.
Highlights of GAO-19-464, a report to
c
ongressional committees
Page i GAO-19-464 Indian Issues
Letter 1
Background 4
Limited Data Are Available on Agricultural Credit Needs of Indian
Tribes and Their Members 9
Stakeholders Reported That Tribes and Their Members Face
Multiple Barriers to Obtaining Agricultural Credit on Tribal Lands 13
FCS Laws Allow for Lending on Tribal Lands, and Some FCS
Associations Reported Lending to Tribes or Tribal Members 20
Stakeholders Discussed Lender Partnerships, Loan Guarantees,
and Other Options to Improve Agricultural Credit Access on
Tribal Lands 27
Agency Comments 30
Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 31
Appendix II GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 35
Tables
Table 1: Tribal Land Types and Definitions 5
Table 2: Agricultural Activity on 76 Selected Indian Reservations,
by Primary Farm or Ranch Operator (2012) 6
Contents
Page ii GAO-19-464 Indian Issues
Abbreviations
BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs
FCA Farm Credit Administration
FCS Farm Credit System
HEARTH Act Helping Expedite and Advance Responsible Tribal
Home Ownership Act of 2012
Interior Department of the Interior
Native CDFI Native Community Development Financial
Institution
USDA Department of Agriculture
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the
United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety
without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain
copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be
necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-19-464 Indian Issues
441 G St. N.W.
Washington, DC 20548
May 9, 2019
The Honorable Pat Roberts
Chairman
The Honorable Debbie Stabenow
Ranking Member
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
United States Senate
The Honorable Collin C. Peterson
Chairman
The Honorable Mike Conaway
Ranking Member
Committee on Agriculture
House of Representatives
The Honorable Raul M. Grijalva
Chairman
The Honorable Rob Bishop
Ranking Member
Committee on Natural Resources
House of Representatives
Approximately 46 million acres of the 56 million acres the federal
government holds in trust for the benefit of Indian tribes and their
members has an agricultural purpose, according to the Department of the
Interior’s (Interior) Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA).
1
Agricultural activity on
tribal lands can include farming, ranching, aquaculture, and other
agribusinesses.
2
Tribal agriculture and economic development experts
have noted that Indian tribes and their members may need improved
access to agricultural credit, such as operating or equipment loans, to
develop and expand agricultural businesses on tribal lands. One source
1
See Bureau of Indian Affairs, “Branch of Agriculture and Rangeland Development,”
accessed on April 18, 2019.
https://www.bia.gov/bia/ots/division-natural-resources/branch-agriculture-and-rangeland-d
evelopment. BIA officials told us that tracts with agricultural utilization also may have
coinciding land uses that do not prohibit or interfere with agriculture purposes. Individuals
and tribes decide how to use their respective lands and report those decisions to BIA.
2
For purposes of this report, “tribal lands” refers to reservations (including all land within
the reservations’ boundaries), trust land, allotments, and restricted fee land. We discuss
the types of tribal lands in more detail later in the Background. Also see appendix I.
Letter
Page 2 GAO-19-464 Indian Issues
of agricultural credit is the Farm Credit System (FCS), a national network
of customer-owned lending institutions.
The Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018 included a provision for us to
study the agricultural credit needs of Indian tribes and their members on
tribal lands, and FCS institutions’ authority and resources to meet those
needs. This report describes (1) what is known about the agricultural
credit needs of Indian tribes and their members on tribal lands, (2) the
barriers stakeholders and experts identified that Indian tribes and their
members on tribal lands face in obtaining agricultural credit to meet their
needs, (3) FCS’s lending authority and lending and outreach activities on
tribal land, and (4) suggestions stakeholders have discussed to improve
access to agricultural credit on tribal lands.
To address all the objectives, we reviewed relevant federal statutes,
regulations, and other legal documentation. We interviewed officials from
the Farm Credit Administration (FCA), BIA, the Department of Agriculture
(USDA), and FCS’s trade association, the Farm Credit Council. We
interviewed experts on tribal agriculture and economic development from
advocacy groups and academia, selected based on relevant publications,
testimonies before Congress, or recommendations from other experts in
these fields. Throughout this report, we refer to them as experts.
We also interviewed stakeholders associated with seven selected tribes.
3
We first selected six tribes from locations in different regions (Great
Plains, Rocky Mountain, Northwest, Southwest) and one state
(Oklahoma). Within these regions, the selected tribes were those with
generally large tribal land areas with high levels of agricultural activity, as
indicated by the USDA 2012 Census of Agriculture data.
4
Four of the six
tribes we contacted to request interviews provided us with various
contacts. As a result, for four tribes, we interviewed tribal agriculture
department employees, tribal farm employees, or representatives of the
Native Community Development Financial Institution (Native CDFI)
3
Our report generally addresses the agricultural credit needs of tribes and their members
in the lower 48 states. See appendix I.
4
Department of Agriculture, 2012 Census of Agriculture: American Indian Reservations,
Subject Series, Part 5, AC-12-S-5 (Washington, D.C.: August 2014). This was the most
recent available version of the reservation data as of April 2019.
Page 3 GAO-19-464 Indian Issues
serving the tribe.
5
We then selected three additional tribes based on
USDA data or recommendations from experts we interviewed.
6
For these
three tribes, we interviewed employees of tribal farms or representatives
of Native CDFIs or community development corporations. Throughout this
report, we refer to tribal government employees, tribal farm employees, or
representatives of Native CDFIs or community development corporations
serving a tribe as tribal stakeholders. Although the information we
obtained from the tribal agriculture department employees allowed us to
provide anecdotal tribal perspectives, it is not generalizable to the 573
federally recognized Indian tribes. The views of tribal farm employees and
Native CDFI and community development corporation representatives
also cannot be generalized to tribes but illustrate views on needs,
barriers, and other issues from the perspectives of the organizations.
To address the first objective on agricultural credit needs, we also
reviewed federal data sources and federal regulations related to collecting
data on loan applicants’ personal characteristics for nonresidential loans.
To supplement the limited data and provide additional information for the
second objective on barriers to obtaining agricultural credit, we conducted
a review of literature from government and academic reports and
identified additional materials through citations in literature we reviewed.
To collect information for the third objective, we reviewed the marketing
plans of a nongeneralizable sample of 11 FCS associations whose
territories included large tribal land areas with high levels of agricultural
activity. We also obtained written responses from the 11 associations to a
series of questions we posed about their lending and outreach to tribes
and their members and any challenges in making loans involving tribal
lands. For more information on our scope and methodology, see
appendix I.
5
CDFIs expand economic opportunity in low-income communities by providing access to
financial products and services for local residents and businesses. The Department of the
Treasury’s CDFI Fund has a Native American CDFI Assistance Program that makes
financial and technical assistance awards to Native CDFIs (certified or certifiable CDFIs
where at least 50 percent of the activities serve Native Americans, Alaska Natives, and/or
Native Hawaiians). There were 68 certified Native CDFIs as of February 2019, according
to the CDFI Fund.
6
We contacted the additional three tribes to supplement our original sample. For more
information, see appendix I.
Page 4 GAO-19-464 Indian Issues
We conducted this performance audit from December 2018 to May 2019
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
As of May 2019, the federal government recognized 573 Indian tribes as
distinct, independent political communities with certain powers of
sovereignty and self-government, including power over their territory and
members. The tribes can vary greatly in terms of their culture, language,
population size, land base, location, and economic status. As of the 2010
U.S. Census, about 21 percent, or 1.1 million, of all American Indians
lived on tribal lands.
Tribal lands include many land types (see table 1). According to BIA, the
federal government holds about 46 million acres in trust for tribes (tribal
trust land) and more than 10 million acres in trust for individual Indians
(individual trust land).
7
7
The terms Native American and Indian generally refer to American Indians. In this report,
we use the term “Indian” unless citing the work of others that uses “Native American.”
Background
Indian Tribes and Tribal
Land Types
Page 5 GAO-19-464 Indian Issues
Table 1: Tribal Land Types and Definitions
Land type
Description
Trust
The federal government holds legal title but the beneficial interest remains with the Indian tribe or
individual Indian.
Restricted fee
An Indian tribe or individual Indian holds title to the land, but with legal restrictions against alienation or
enc
umbrance (for example, the land cannot be sold or conveyed without the approval of the Secretary of
the Interior).
Allotment
Land owned by one or more individual Indians as a result of federal laws that divided reservation lands
and allotted them to individual tribal members. Allotments can be individual trust land or individual
restricted fee land.
Reservation
Land set aside by treaty, federal law, or executive order for the residence or use of an Indian tribe. The
land within the reservation may include a mixture of tribal trust land, individual trust land, restricted fee
land, allotments, and fee-simple land. (Fee-simple land is owned without restriction and can be alienated
or encumbered on the owner’s initiative unless it is owned by an Indian tribe. It is the most common type
of private land ownership in the United States.)
Source: GAO analysis of federal laws and regulations. | GAO-19-464
Some tribes also have reservations. According to BIA, there are
approximately 326 Indian land areas in the United States administered as
federal Indian reservations (including reservations, pueblos, rancherias,
missions, villages, and communities). The land within the reservation may
include a mixture of tribal trust land, individual trust land, restricted fee
land, allotments, and land without trust or restricted status (that is, fee-
simple land), which may be owned by tribes, individual Indians, or non-
Indians.
8
Agricultural producers (farmers, ranchers, or producers or harvesters of
aquatic products) on tribal lands can be individual tribal members, the
tribe itself, or non-Indians who lease the land from the tribe or Indian
owner. According to USDA’s 2012 Census of Agriculture, about 75
percent of farms and ranches on 76 selected Indian reservations were
operated by agricultural producers that identified as American Indian or
8
Beginning in the late 1880s, federal laws were enacted that divided some reservation
lands among individual tribal members. These allotments were often only held in trust or
subject to restrictions on alienation for a limited period of time. Once the trust period and
restrictions ended, it was easier for land to be sold or pass out of Indian ownership. In
addition, surplus lands within the reservation were sold to non-Indians. As a result, Indian
land holdings in the lower 48 states decreased from 138 million acres to 48 million acres
and non-Indians may own fee-simple land within a reservation’s boundaries. In 1934, the
Indian Reorganization Act ended the practice of allotting Indian reservations.
Agricultural Activity on
Tribal Lands
Page 6 GAO-19-464 Indian Issues
Alaska Native (see table 2).
9
On these reservations, Indian producers
held 61 percent of total farm and ranch acreage. However, the total
market value of agricultural products sold from Indian-operated farms and
ranches was just over a tenth of that of non-Indian operated farms and
ranches on the 76 selected reservations.
10
Table 2: Agricultural Activity on 76 Selected Indian Reservations, by Primary Farm or Ranch Operator (2012)
Total
number of
farms and
ranches
Total share of
farms and
ranches
(%)
Total acreage
of farms and
ranches
(in acres)
Total share of
acreage of farms
and ranches
(%)
Total market
value of
agricultural
products sold
(in $1000s)
a
Total share of
market value of
agricultural
products sold
(%)
Indian-operated
17,948
75
28,560,057
61
361,145
10
Non-Indian operated
5,980
25
18,449,341
39
3,079,386
90
Total
23,800
100
47,009,398
100
3,440,531
100
Source: GAO analysis of 2012 Department of Agriculture Census of Agriculture data. | GAO-19-464
Notes: For the Census of Agriculture, the Department of Agriculture (USDA) primarily
collected data through the mail. However, to maximize coverage of American Indian and
Alaska Native agricultural producers, USDA staff obtained supplemental information from
knowledgeable reservation officials. USDA adjustments for nonresponse,
misclassification, or other factors may result in a level of error related to its estimates.
a
According to USDA officials, sales reported are for the entire farm, both on and off of the
reservation. Therefore, if a farm had a small piece of land on the reservation, the entire
sales would be reported in these values, even if little of the value was produced on
reservation land.
In 2011, USDA, which operates several agricultural programs targeted to
traditionally underserved populations, settled a class action lawsuit
brought by Native American farmers and ranchers for $760 million
(Keepseagle v. Vilsack).
11
The lawsuit alleged that USDA discriminated
against Native Americans in its farm loan and farm loan servicing
9
The Navajo Nation, which has the largest reservation in the United States at 16 million
acres, operates a large share of the total Indian-operated farms and ranches. According to
the 2012 Census of Agriculture, there were 14,362 Indian-operated farms on the Navajo
reservation—approximately 80 percent of all Indian-operated farms and ranches on the 76
reservations detailed in the census.
10
All U.S. Census and USDA Census of Agriculture estimates in this report are likely
underestimates, as Indian populations historically have been undercounted in census
activities. In addition, the reservation data from the Census of Agriculture only reflect 76 of
326 total reservations. According to USDA, it based its decisions about which reservation
data to publish on factors including approval of tribal officials, amount of agricultural
activity, success of list building, and respondent confidentiality.
11
Civil Action No. 1:99CV03119 (D.D.C.).
Page 7 GAO-19-464 Indian Issues
programs. In 2018, $266 million of the remaining settlement proceeds
were used to establish the Native American Agriculture Fund. The Fund
will begin awarding grants in 2019 to fund the provision of business
assistance, agricultural education, technical support, and advocacy
services to Native American farmers and ranchers.
Like other businesses, agricultural producers generally require financing
to acquire, maintain, or expand their farms, ranches, or agribusinesses.
Types of agricultural loans as categorized by their purpose or maturity
may vary by lender but generally include the following:
12
• Short-term loans. These loans are used for operating expenses and
match the length and anticipated production value of the operating or
production cycle. They are typically secured by the product (crops or
livestock).
• Intermediate-term loans. These loans are typically used to finance
depreciable assets such as equipment, which serves as the loan
collateral. The loan terms usually range from 18 months to 10 years.
• Long-term loans. These loans are used to acquire, construct, and
develop land and buildings with terms longer than 10 years. They are
secured by real estate and may be called real estate loans.
Several types of lenders provide credit to U.S. agricultural producers.
According to USDA’s Economic Research Service, in 2017, FCS and
commercial banks provided most agricultural credit in the United States,
with respective market shares of 40 and 41 percent. USDA’s Farm
Service Agency—a lender that focuses on assistance to beginning and
underserved farmers and ranchers and also guarantees the repayment of
loans made by other lenders—provided 3 percent, and the remainder was
provided by individuals, life insurance companies, and other lenders.
13
FCS is a government-sponsored enterprise, established in 1916 to
provide sound, adequate, and constructive credit to American farmers
and ranchers. FCS is regulated by FCA, an independent federal agency.
12
Paul N. Ellinger and Peter J. Barry, A Farmer's Guide to Agricultural Credit (Urbana-
Champaign, Ill.: The Center for Farm and Rural Business Finance, University of Illinois),
accessed April 5, 2019,
http://www.farmdoc.illinois.edu/finance/FarmersGuidetoCreditBody.htm.
13
Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, U.S. and State-Level Farm
Income and Wealth Statistics, accessed April 18, 2019,
https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/farm-income-and-wealth-statistics/.
Agricultural Credit and the
Farm Credit System
Page 8 GAO-19-464 Indian Issues
FCS’s statutory mission includes being responsive to the needs of all
types of creditworthy agricultural producers, and in particular, young,
beginning, and small farmers and ranchers.
14
According to FCA, FCS is
not statutorily mandated to focus on providing financial opportunities to
any other group.
FCS lends money to eligible agricultural producers primarily through its
69 lending associations (FCS associations), which are funded by its four
banks (FCS banks).
15
All are cooperatives, meaning that FCS borrowers
have ownership and control over the organizations. As of 2017, FCS had
approximately $259 billion in loans outstanding, of which 46 percent were
long-term real estate-based loans; 20 percent were short- and
intermediate-term loans (such as for farm equipment or advance
purchases of production inputs); and 16 percent were for agribusiness
activities, such as agricultural processing and marketing.
16
FCS associations are not evaluated under the Community Reinvestment
Act, which requires certain federal banking regulators to assess whether
financial institutions they supervise are meeting the credit needs of the
local communities. FCS receives certain tax exemptions at the federal,
state, and local level.
17
14
FCS associations are required to establish programs for furnishing sound and
constructive credit and related services to young, beginning, and small farmers and
ranchers. These programs must assure that such credit and services are available in
coordination with other units of FCS serving the territory and with other governmental and
private sources of credit. 12 U.S.C. § 2207(a).
15
The scope of this report is limited to the FCS banks and FCS associations (collectively,
FCS institutions). In addition to the FCS institutions, FCS includes the Federal Farm Credit
Banks Funding Corporation, a special-purpose entity that issues and markets debt
securities on behalf of FCS banks to raise loan funds. FCS also includes the Federal
Agricultural Mortgage Corporation (Farmer Mac), which provides a secondary market for
agricultural real estate loans, government-guaranteed portions of certain loans, rural
housing mortgage loans, and eligible rural utility cooperative loans. Farmer Mac has no
liability for the debt of any other FCS institution, and the other FCS institutions have no
liability for Farmer Mac debt.
16
The rest of the loans were generally for other agriculture-related purposes, such as rural
housing or utilities, which are not included in our scope. See Farm Credit Administration,
2017 Annual Report on the Farm Credit System (McLean, Va.: October 2018).
17
See, for example, 12 U.S.C. §§ 2023, 2077, 2098, 2134.
Page 9 GAO-19-464 Indian Issues
Little data exists on the credit needs of tribes and their members. One
measure of unmet credit needs is the difference between the amount
applied for and the amount received. However, we could not determine
the amount of agricultural credit that Indian tribes and their members
applied for or received. These data were limited in part because federal
regulations historically have prohibited lenders from asking about the race
of applicants for nonresidential loans, including agricultural loans.
18
Additionally, even if data were available, the unmet need could be greater
than that indicated by information on those who may have applied for and
did not receive credit. Four tribal stakeholders and experts told us that
tribal members may choose not to apply for agricultural credit because
they were directly discouraged by loan officers, had problems completing
paperwork, or had heard of other tribal members being denied loans.
Two tribal agricultural experts told us that on some level, the agricultural
credit needs of Indian tribes and their members are the same as other
agricultural producers’ credit needs. In particular, tribal stakeholders and
18
With limited exceptions, creditors may not inquire about the race, color, religion, national
origin, or sex of an applicant for a credit transaction that is subject to the Equal Credit
Opportunity Act. 12 C.F.R. § 1002.5(b). In 2010, the law was amended to require financial
institutions to collect information concerning credit applications made by women-owned,
minority-owned, and small businesses. The purpose of the data collection is to facilitate
enforcement of fair lending laws and identify the business and community development
needs of women-owned, minority-owned, and small businesses. 15 U.S.C. § 1691c–2.
However, in 2011, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau advised financial institutions
that their obligations under the new provision would not go into effect until implementing
regulations were issued. As of April 2019, the bureau has not issued implementing
regulations. On a separate note, in cases that did not involve lending, the U.S. Supreme
Court has ruled that membership in a federally recognized Indian tribe is a political, not a
racial, classification.
Limited Data Are
Available on
Agricultural Credit
Needs of Indian
Tribes and Their
Members
Data on Agricultural Credit
Needs for Tribes and Their
Members Are Limited
Page 10 GAO-19-464 Indian Issues
experts told us that the tribal members need short-term loans for
operating expenses and intermediate-term loans for equipment. One
difference between the agricultural credit needs of tribal members and
other producers is that tribal members may have a greater unmet need
for long-term loans, which are typically secured by real estate, because of
difficulties in using tribal lands as collateral, as discussed later in this
report.
Credit needs vary based on the type of operation or borrower.
• Type of operation. Some tribal stakeholders we interviewed told us
that members of their tribes were more likely to participate in ranching
than farming, partly because farming has higher start-up costs. For
example, one tribal agricultural expert told us a rancher can start with
a few head of cattle and grow the herd over time, but a beginning
farmer may need to purchase equipment. Additionally, several tribal
stakeholders told us that land on their reservations was more suitable
for ranching than farming.
• Type of borrower. Some tribes have agricultural businesses, which
have credit needs different from those of individual tribal members,
according to experts and BIA officials we interviewed. For example,
they may be greater or more complex. According to an expert and a
tribal stakeholder, established agricultural businesses likely would be
able to receive credit from commercial lenders because they have
more resources to pledge as collateral or stronger credit histories.
Additionally, if a tribe has other profitable businesses, it likely will have
less difficulty obtaining credit or financing agriculture with those other
resources than those without such resources.
According to tribal stakeholders, experts, and BIA officials we interviewed,
tribal members who obtain agricultural credit likely receive it from USDA’s
Farm Service Agency, other USDA programs, or Native CDFIs. Some
tribal members receive agricultural credit from local private lenders, but
they are typically larger, more established borrowers. One expert told us
that tribal members who are smaller or beginning agricultural producers
and cannot access commercial banks instead may borrow money from
family members. A 2017 report found that Native business owners were
less likely than other business owners to obtain start-up capital from
banks.
19
19
Miriam Jorgensen and Randall K.Q. Akee, Access to Capital and Credit in Native
Communities: A Data Review (Tucson, Ariz.: Native Nations Institute, 2017).
Page 11 GAO-19-464 Indian Issues
Some experts we interviewed cited Native CDFIs as growing providers of
agricultural credit to tribal members. A 2014 survey of 41 Native CDFIs—
credit unions, community banks, and loan funds—found more than 40
percent provided credit and training to farmers and ranchers.
20
In total,
these CDFIs made almost $6 million in agricultural loans annually.
However, Native CDFIs are limited in how much agricultural credit they
can provide. In the 2014 survey, 56 percent of the Native CDFIs that
made agricultural loans reported not having enough capital for such
loans, with a total unmet need of at least $3 million in the previous year.
One Native CDFI we interviewed said its agricultural loans averaged
about $100,000 per borrower, and another said its operating loans were
about $50,000–$75,000 and its intermediate-term loans about $100,000.
Selected literature we reviewed and interviews with some tribal
stakeholders found that tribes have a growing interest in agriculture,
motivated by concerns over tribal members’ access to food, health, and
employment opportunities.
• Food access. A 2014 USDA study found that about 26 percent of
individuals in tribal areas lived within 1 mile of a supermarket,
compared to about 59 percent of all Americans.
21
• Health. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
American Indians and Alaska Natives have higher rates of obesity and
diabetes than white Americans.
22
20
First Nations Oweesta Corporation, Food Financing Efforts 2014: Native CDFI Support
of Native Farmers & Ranchers (Longmont, Colo.: 2014). The survey queried all 67 Native
CDFIs that were established at the time of the survey and 41 responded for a response
rate of 61 percent.
21
Phillip Kaufman, et al., Measuring Access to Healthful, Affordable Food in American
Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Areas, EIB-131 (Washington, D.C.: December 2014).
22
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Summary Health Statistics: National Health
Interview Survey: 2017. Tables A4a and A-15 (Atlanta, Ga.: 2017). Data were only
available for American Indians and Alaska Natives as a combined group.
Stakeholders See
Potential for Growth of
Agricultural Activity on
Tribal Lands That Could
Require Access to Credit
Page 12 GAO-19-464 Indian Issues
• Employment. A 2014 Interior report found that, on average, only
about 50 percent of Native American adults in tribal statistical areas
were employed either full or part-time.
23
Two commissioned reports on tribal agriculture say that Indian tribes’ vast
land base represents an untapped opportunity for tribes to increase
agricultural production, including growing their own healthful foods and
economic development.
24
But, as previously discussed, for reservations
featured in USDA’s 2012 Census of Agriculture, non-Indian producers
received a large share of the agricultural revenue. Additionally, the
agricultural products grown on tribal lands typically do not feed tribal
members and instead are sold into the general agriculture commodity
system.
Furthermore, these reports and experts we interviewed noted that the
growth of agriculture on tribal lands could require access to credit. For
example, one tribal agriculture expert told us some tribes are interested in
transitioning to “value-added” agriculture, which aims to help the
community that produces raw agricultural materials capture the value of
the products as they progress through the food supply chain (for example,
by processing crops they grow or transitioning to more profitable
products, such as organic). Value-added agriculture initiatives might
require building facilities or acquiring more expensive inputs, and tribes
likely would need financing to support these initiatives. According to some
experts and a study we reviewed, if tribes and their members cannot
access affordable credit, it could limit the growth of these initiatives.
25
23
Department of the Interior, Office of the Assistant Secretary – Indian Affairs, 2013
American Indian Population and Labor Force Report (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 16, 2014).
The report defined “tribal statistical areas” as geographic areas identified by the Census
that define the boundaries of reservations or comparable tribal areas for the purposes of
statistical data collection.
24
Echo Hawk Consulting, Feeding Ourselves: Food Access, Health Disparities, and the
Pathways to Healthy Native American Communities (Longmont, Colo.: 2015) and First
Nations Development Institute, Time for the Harvest: Native Food Systems in Perspective
(Longmont, Colo.: February 2004).
25
Echo Hawk Consulting.
Page 13 GAO-19-464 Indian Issues
Tribes and their members face several barriers to obtaining agricultural
credit, including land tenure issues, administrative challenges, lenders’
legal concerns, and loan readiness issues. As a result, there is limited
commercial lending on tribal lands.
Ten tribal stakeholders and experts we interviewed cited difficulties in
using tribal lands as collateral as a barrier to obtaining credit because of
federal laws or other constraints.
• Tribal trust and restricted fee lands. Federal law generally prohibits
lenders from obtaining an ownership interest in tribal trust and
restricted fee lands. As a result, tribes are not able to use their 46
million acres of tribal trust or restricted fee lands as collateral for a
loan. However, tribes can lease such lands to other parties, including
a tribal business or tribal member who wishes to use the land for
agricultural purposes (lessees). These lessees can then pledge their
“leasehold interest” in the lands as collateral for a loan, but may face
challenges in doing so.
26
For example, in general, leases of tribal trust
and restricted fee lands must be approved by BIA and comply with its
leasing regulations, which stipulate that agricultural leases generally
26
The lessee must obtain approval of the Secretary of the Interior to pledge a leasehold
interest as collateral. When a borrower uses a leasehold interest as collateral, upon
default, the lender has the right to exercise control over the land for the remaining term of
the underlying lease.
Stakeholders
Reported That Tribes
and Their Members
Face Multiple Barriers
to Obtaining
Agricultural Credit on
Tribal Lands
Land Tenure Issues May
Present Hurdles to
Obtaining Agricultural
Credit
Page 14 GAO-19-464 Indian Issues
have a maximum term of 10 years.
27
While BIA generally allows
leased tribal trust and restricted fee lands to be subject to a leasehold
mortgage, three tribal stakeholders and experts we interviewed said
that BIA’s maximum term for agricultural leases often was insufficient
for obtaining an agricultural loan.
28
• Individual trust and restricted fee lands. Unlike tribal trust and
restricted fee lands, the owners of individual trust and restricted fee
lands can use these lands as collateral for a loan with permission of
the Secretary of the Interior.
29
However, many tracts of individual trust
and restricted fee lands are allotments with fractionated ownership.
According to nine tribal stakeholders and experts we interviewed,
fractionated land is a barrier to agricultural activity and obtaining
credit. Fractionated land occurs when an allottee dies without a will
and ownership is divided among all the heirs, but the land is not
physically divided. Thus, multiple owners (in some cases thousands)
can have an ownership interest in the land and may have different
ideas about how the land should be used. Interior estimated that out
of the 92,000 fractionated tracts (representing more than 10 million
acres), more than half generated no income in 2006–2011.
30
For
agricultural leases and leasehold mortgages on fractionated lands,
BIA regulations require consent from owners of a majority interest in
27
An agricultural lease may have a term of up to 25 years if substantial investment in the
improvement of the land is required. However, some tribes may have statutory authority to
enter into agricultural leases for longer than 10 or 25 years. In addition, the Helping
Expedite and Advance Responsible Tribal Home Ownership Act of 2012 (HEARTH Act)
authorizes tribes to develop their own agricultural leasing regulations and, once those
regulations are approved by the Secretary of the Interior, to issue agricultural leases of
their trust and restricted fee lands without BIA approval. Under the HEARTH Act, tribes
may issue agricultural leases of tribal trust and restricted fee lands for a term of 25 years
with up to two renewal terms of 25 years each. The HEARTH Act does not authorize tribes
to assume responsibility for leasing individual trust and restricted fee lands. Pub. L. No.
112-151, § 2,126 Stat. 1150, 1151 (2012) (codified at 25 U.S.C. § 415(h)). Tribes also
may be able to lease their trust and restricted fee land without Interior approval pursuant
to other statutory authority.
28
In general, lenders require that the term of the lease be longer than the term of the loan.
Therefore, a 10-year lease would not be sufficient collateral for most long-term real estate
loans, which have terms longer than 10 years.
29
Individual trust and restricted fee land also can be subject to a leasehold mortgage with
the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, like tribal trust and restricted fee land. In such
cases, lessees may encounter the same difficulties as described previously for leasehold
mortgages.
30
Department of the Interior, Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations: Initial
Implementation Plan (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 18, 2012).
Page 15 GAO-19-464 Indian Issues
such lands.
31
However, according to Interior, some allotments have
thousands of co-owners, some of whose whereabouts are unknown,
which could make it difficult to obtain their permission for an
agricultural lease or a leasehold mortgage.
32
Additionally, as a result of allotment, many Indian reservations contain
different land ownership types, creating a “checkerboard” pattern of lands
that can make the establishment and financing of large-scale agricultural
projects difficult. For example, in addition to tribal and individual trust and
restricted fee lands, reservations also may include lands that passed out
of trust during the allotment period and were bought by non-Indians.
Thus, multiple tracts within a large-scale agricultural project may need to
be leased and financed separately because they have different owners
and may be subject to different laws. This can also make legal jurisdiction
unclear, which is a concern for private lenders financing projects on such
lands, as discussed below.
Experts and tribal stakeholders we interviewed reported that the barriers
to collateralizing various types of tribal lands make it difficult for tribes and
tribal members to access different types of agricultural loans. Most long-
term loans—typically used for larger projects—generally need to be
secured by real estate, which make these inaccessible to tribes and tribal
members who do not have land that can be encumbered. For example,
an Indian agricultural producer who operates on trust land and wants to
build an agricultural facility for a value-added operation may not be able
to obtain a long-term loan unless he or she has other unrestricted land to
pledge as collateral. In addition, according to the former Executive
Director of the Intertribal Agriculture Council, when most agricultural
producers face economic distress, they can pledge land as security and
receive an extended period of time (20–40 years) to pay off the debt.
33
Tribal members may not have that option, making it difficult to obtain
credit in an emergency (such as adverse weather). In addition, according
to a tribal agriculture expert and three tribal stakeholders, tribal trust land
31
25 C.F.R §§ 162.207(c), 162.230(a). BIA also may grant an agricultural lease on behalf
of all of the individual Indian owners of a fractionated tract if (1) they cannot agree on a
lease within a specified time period after BIA’s written notification to them of its intention to
grant an agricultural lease on their behalf and (2) the land is not being used by an Indian
landowner. 25 C.F.R § 162.209(b).
32
Department of the Interior, Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations.
33
Breaking New Ground in Agribusiness Opportunities in Indian Country, Senate
Committee on Indian Affairs, 115
th
Cong. (Jan. 17, 2018); statement of Ross Racine,
Executive Director, Intertribal Agriculture Council.
Page 16 GAO-19-464 Indian Issues
is not counted as an asset on balance sheets, which may affect an
agricultural lender’s assessment of a borrower’s creditworthiness for
various types of loans.
Processes at Interior—particularly at BIA—can increase the amount of
time it takes to obtain a loan, which can discourage both lenders and
borrowers, according to tribal stakeholders and experts. Most of the tribal
stakeholders and experts we interviewed told us that tribal members often
encounter delays when seeking necessary documentation from BIA. For
example, for loans involving trust or restricted fee lands, BIA needs to
provide a title status report to the lender that identifies the type of land
ownership and current owners. Two tribal stakeholders told us that BIA
takes months to produce a certified title status report. By that time, the
growing season could be over. A representative from a Native CDFI
serving a tribe in the Great Plains said it can take years to receive these
reports. BIA reported that in fiscal year 2017, it certified 95 percent of land
titles within 48 hours.
34
However, BIA’s performance on this measure has
varied considerably over the last several years, and BIA officials told us
that it can take significantly longer to process title status reports for
complicated cases.
Tribal members also can encounter administrative challenges at other
points in the process. One Native CDFI representative told us she found
out that BIA did not record a leasehold mortgage when the CDFI
attempted to foreclose on the loan, which almost prevented the CDFI
from recovering the loan collateral. In other cases, Interior’s Appraisal and
Valuation Services Office might need to conduct an appraisal, such as for
an agricultural lease. According to Interior policy, these appraisals should
be completed within 60 days, but one tribal economic development expert
said they routinely take much longer.
As a result of the unique legal status of tribes, some lenders, including
FCS associations, reported concerns about their ability to recover loan
collateral if the borrower defaulted on a loan involving tribal lands. Seven
of the 11 FCS associations we contacted told us that they had legal
concerns of this nature, and six of the associations said they had
34
BIA met its 48-hour processing goal in 71 percent and 46 percent of cases in fiscal years
2016 and 2015, respectively. See Department of the Interior, U.S. Department of the
Interior 2018/2019 Annual Performance Plan and 2017 Report (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 8,
2018).
Administrative Process
Delays May Deter Lenders
and Borrowers
Lenders Reported Having
Legal Concerns about
Recovering Collateral
Involving Tribal Lands
Page 17 GAO-19-464 Indian Issues
experienced the issues themselves. These concerns primarily arise from
the following issues:
• Tribal sovereign immunity. Tribes are distinct, independent political
communities with certain inherent powers of self-government and, as
a result of this sovereignty, have immunity from lawsuits. A lender
cannot sue to enforce the terms of a loan agreement with a tribe
unless the tribe waives its sovereign immunity in connection with the
agreement. Private lenders therefore might be hesitant to make a loan
because they would not be able to sue the tribe if any disputes arose.
We previously reported that tribes may waive sovereign immunity in
agreements or contracts on a case-by-case basis and some tribes
have formed separate companies to conduct business that are not
immune from lawsuits.
35
However, tribal government officials may
decide that waiving the tribe’s sovereign immunity for purposes of
enforcing the loan agreement is not in the tribe’s best interest.
Additionally, tribal sovereign immunity would not bar lenders from
seeking to foreclose on loans made to individual tribal members.
• Legal jurisdiction. Loans made to Indian tribes or their members and
secured by tribal lands or collateral located on tribal lands may be
subject to tribal laws, rather than state laws. In addition, it is
sometimes unclear whether federal, state, or tribal courts would have
jurisdiction in the event of a default or foreclosure. If tribal laws govern
but do not adequately provide for the lender’s foreclosure, or if there is
not a legal forum to hear the foreclosure lawsuit, lenders may be
unable to recover the loan collateral. To address these types of
concerns, some tribes have adopted secured transaction codes
modeled after the Uniform Commercial Code, which can help to
assure lenders of their ability to recover collateral in the event of
default.
36
• Unfamiliarity with tribal laws. Laws and court systems vary among
the nation’s 573 tribes, making it more difficult and costly for lenders
to learn tribal laws. For example, one FCS association noted that it
has many federally recognized tribes in its region, each of which may
have different laws.
35
GAO, Indian Issues: Observations on Some Unique Factors that May Affect Economic
Activity on Tribal Lands, GAO-11-543T (Washington, D.C.: April 7, 2011).
36
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Commercial Lending in Indian Country:
Potential Opportunities in a Growing Market, Community Developments Insights
(Washington, D.C.: February 2016).
Page 18 GAO-19-464 Indian Issues
If lenders have concerns regarding their ability to recover loan collateral in
the event of a default, lenders may not make loans involving tribal lands
due to concerns that the loan would not meet safety and soundness
requirements.
Five tribal stakeholders we interviewed said some tribal members may
need assistance—such as credit repair and technical assistance for loan
applications—to become ready for agricultural loans. Some tribal
members have no credit history, which can be a barrier to obtaining a
loan. One study found that compared to off-reservation counterparts,
reservation residents were more likely to have no credit history and when
credit scores were available, they were lower on average.
37
Many Native
CDFIs provide credit builder or credit repair products to help tribal
members qualify for larger loans, such as small business loans.
38
Four tribal stakeholders we interviewed said members of their tribes
sometimes need technical assistance to complete the paperwork required
for agricultural loans, such as a business plan. One tribal member who
owns a ranch told us that the first time he tried to apply for a loan, he had
trouble completing the required paperwork and ultimately chose not to
apply. He felt tribal members seeking credit would benefit from assistance
in completing loan applications. One Native CDFI representative told us
that her organization provides technical assistance to its borrowers to
help them complete loan paperwork but noted that commercial lenders
often did not provide these services.
We and others have noted that the barriers described above have
depressed commercial lending on tribal lands. In 2010, we found that
banks were reluctant to do business on tribal lands because of the
cumbersome procedures and their lack of experience.
39
More recently, a
report for the Department of Housing and Urban Development surveying
37
Valentina Dimitrova-Grajzl, et al., “Consumer Credit on American Indian Reservations,”
Economic Systems, vol. 39 (2015): p. 518.
38
First Nations Oweesta Corporation, Snapshot 2018: The Growing Native CDFI
Movement , accessed April 19, 2019. https://www.oweesta.org/wp-
content/uploads/2018/11/Snapshot-2018-Growing-NCDFI-Movement_web.pdf.
39
GAO, Native American Housing: Tribes Generally View Block Grant Program Effective,
but Tracking of Infrastructure Plans and Investments Needs Improvements, GAO-10-326
(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 25, 2010).
Potential Borrowers May
Need Assistance with
Loan Readiness
Barriers Have Limited
Commercial Lending on
Tribal Lands
Page 19 GAO-19-464 Indian Issues
lenders found that BIA processing times were a major challenge in
making mortgage loans involving tribal lands.
40
A Native CDFI
representative told us that lenders have little incentive to engage in a
lengthy underwriting process, particularly if the loan is for a small amount
and if other potential borrowers have less complicated circumstances.
Some experts have described tribal lands as “credit deserts.”
41
For
example, one study of three different areas of tribal lands found that few
financial institutions or automated teller machines were located on these
reservations.
42
One Native CDFI representative told us that in her
experience, many people on her reservation never had a bank account.
She noted that when people do not have a bank account, it can be
challenging for them to see themselves as potential borrowers.
Similarly, our analysis found that the land tenure issues, administrative
process delays, lenders’ legal concerns, and loan readiness issues can
make agricultural loans involving tribal lands more time-consuming and
costly to underwrite. For example, one FCS association told us that loans
involving tribal lands require specialized legal analysis, which may be an
additional expense that it would not incur for otherwise comparable loans.
These same issues can increase a lender’s exposure to the risks inherent
in agricultural lending because they can affect the borrower’s ability to
repay the loan, the adequacy of the collateral to secure the loan, and the
lender’s ability to recover the collateral in the event of a default.
43
According to FCA, consistent with the purposes of the Farm Credit Act of
1971, the ability of a lender to collect loans is an important element of the
institution’s safety and soundness, and the continued availability of credit.
Finally, some stakeholders said they believe that discrimination also
contributes to the lack of commercial lending on tribal lands. Four experts,
a tribal stakeholder, and a BIA representative told us that they believe
that some commercial lenders do not want to make loans involving tribal
40
David Listokin, et al., Mortgage Lending on Tribal Land: A Report from the Assessment
of American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian Housing Needs (Washington,
D.C.: January 2017).
41
For example, see Echo Hawk Consulting and Racine.
42
Jorgensen and Akee.
43
According to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the risks associated with
agricultural lending are credit, interest rate, liquidity, operational, price, compliance,
strategic, and reputation. See Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Comptroller’s
Handbook, Safety and Soundness: Agricultural Lending, version 1.3 (Washington, D.C.:
Oct. 15, 2018).
Page 20 GAO-19-464 Indian Issues
lands because of bias. As previously discussed, the plaintiffs in the
Keepseagle case that USDA settled for $760 million alleged that USDA
discriminated against Native American farmers and ranchers in certain
programs. According to a tribal economic development expert, tribal
members who face discrimination or other negative experiences with
commercial lenders may share these experiences with other tribal
members and deter them from applying for credit.
We found that FCS generally has authority to make loans involving tribal
lands. Of the 11 FCS associations we contacted with tribal lands in their
territories, some reported that they had recently made loans to Indian
tribes or their members, and their outreach to these populations included
support for agricultural education.
Generally, FCS has authority to provide a broad range of credit services
to eligible agricultural producers, which may include tribes, tribal
businesses, and individual tribal members operating on various types of
tribal lands.
44
However, borrowers must meet various eligibility and
underwriting criteria that are required by law. For example, applicants for
agricultural loans must be determined to be eligible borrowers, which
means they must own agricultural land or be engaged in the production of
agricultural products, including aquatic products.
45
Also, long-term real estate loans (which have terms of up to 40 years)
made by FCS institutions must be secured by a first-position lien on
interests in real estate, thus enabling FCS to obtain ownership or control
44
For example, eligible borrowers can be individual U.S. citizens, as well as legal entities
established pursuant to the laws of any tribal authority and legally authorized to conduct
business. 12 C.F.R. § 613.3000. Groups of individual tribal members operating as a
cooperative also may qualify, provided they meet the criteria set forth in 12 C.F.R. §
613.3100.
45
Persons furnishing farm-related services also may be eligible. See 12 U.S.C. § 2017 and
12 C.F.R. § 613.3000.
FCS Laws Allow for
Lending on Tribal
Lands, and Some
FCS Associations
Reported Lending to
Tribes or Tribal
Members
FCS Laws Allow for
Lending on Tribal Lands
Page 21 GAO-19-464 Indian Issues
of the land in the event of default.
46
FCA has determined that this
statutory requirement can be satisfied, for example, with leasehold
interests in real estate—such as that held by a tribal member leasing
reservation land from a tribe—provided that the lease grants the borrower
significant rights to the land, and the loan is made on a safe and sound
basis.
47
As noted earlier, BIA regulations often limit agricultural leases of
tribal lands to a term of up to 10 years. In such cases, FCS associations
similarly may limit the term of the related loan (to less than 10 years).
According to FCA, when loans are for shorter terms than the leases, the
FCS association’s first lien is preserved, as required by law, and the loan
is prudent from a safety and soundness perspective.
FCA has not issued written guidance indicating whether interests in other
types of tribal lands—such as individual trust or restricted fee lands—also
satisfy the requirement for a first-position lien on interests in real estate.
However, FCA has the authority to determine what types of interests in
real estate will satisfy this requirement. Also, according to FCA, there is
no statutory requirement that short- and intermediate-term loans be
secured with interests in real estate; such loans instead can be secured
by other collateral, such as equipment, crops, livestock, and business
revenues.
In addition to making direct loans to agricultural producers, FCS has
authority to lend to non-FCS institutions, such as commercial banks and
credit unions, which in turn make agricultural loans to FCS-eligible
borrowers. These other financing institutions are known as OFIs.
48
46
12 U.S.C. §2018(a)(2).
47
Farm Credit Administration, “Mortgage Lending: Does a mortgage loan secured by a first
lien on rural real estate that an eligible borrower leases meet the requirements of section
1.10(a)(2) of the Farm Credit Act of 1971?” Legal Opinion Summary 07-01 (McLean, Va.:
June 12, 2007).
48
In particular, FCS generally must assure funding to any creditworthy OFI that (1)
maintains at least 15 percent of its loan volume at a seasonal peak in loans and leases to
agricultural producers, and (2) establishes a financing relationship with FCS for at least 2
years. 12 C.F.R. §614.4540. All such obligations funded through FCS must be endorsed
with the full recourse or unconditional guarantee of the OFI. 12 C.F.R. § 614.4570.
According to the 2017 FCS Annual Report, FCS had outstanding loan volume to OFIs of
$857 million as of December 31, 2017. This amount represented less than one-half of 1
percent of FCS’s loan portfolio. FCS also may partner with non-FCS lenders through loan
syndications and participations, typically to reduce credit risk and comply with lending
limits. Also, under its similar-entity authority, FCS may participate with non-FCS lenders
that originate loans to those who are not eligible to borrow directly from FCS, but whose
activities are functionally like those of eligible borrowers.
Page 22 GAO-19-464 Indian Issues
According to FCA, the OFI lending authority allows FCS banks to fulfill
their mission as a government-sponsored enterprise by enhancing the
liquidity of OFIs, thereby lowering the cost of agricultural credit. As noted
earlier, FCS is required to establish programs to serve young, beginning,
and small farmers and ranchers, but it is not statutorily mandated to focus
on providing financial opportunities to any other group of eligible
agricultural producers.
Notwithstanding the authorities described above, FCS must comply with
other applicable laws and requirements. For example, FCS institutions
are subject to safety and soundness oversight by FCA, including with
respect to loan underwriting. FCS institutions also must comply with
applicable federal, state, and tribal laws governing any tribal lands or
property thereon used as loan collateral. FCS associations may obtain
Farm Service Agency guarantees on loans to borrowers who otherwise
may not meet FCS underwriting requirements. However, by law, loans
made by FCS associations are not eligible for a similar BIA loan
guarantee program.
49
Based on information from selected FCS associations located near tribal
lands, some FCS associations have lent to Indian tribes or their members
in the last 2 years.
50
Of the 11 FCS associations we contacted with tribal
lands in their territories, representatives of eight told us they had loaned
to tribes or their members in the last 2 years—primarily to individual tribal
49
FCS associations are instrumentalities of the federal government and thus their loans
are ineligible for BIA guaranties. 12 U.S.C. §§ 2071, 2091; 25 U.S.C. § 1486, 25 C.F.R.
§103.10.
50
We sent questionnaires to the associations on March 14, 2019. Therefore, the “last 2
years” generally would refer to loans made since March 2017.
Some FCS Associations
Reported Lending to
Indian Tribes or Their
Members, and Selected
Associations’ Outreach to
These Populations
Included Education
Lending
Page 23 GAO-19-464 Indian Issues
members. We made the following observations based on the
associations’ responses:
• Limited data on lending amounts. Representatives of 10 of the 11
FCS associations we queried stated that they either do not collect or
do not maintain data on lending to specific racial populations, thus
making it difficult to provide more detailed information on lending to
Indian tribes and their members.
51
However, four representatives
provided estimates of their recent lending to this population on tribal
lands. One association cited more than $25 million in total loans
outstanding to a small number of tribes and tribal entities. Another
association reported making about $5.5 million in new loans to tribes
or their members on tribal lands in the last 2 years. A third reported a
$3 million revolving line of credit to a family farm, and the fourth said it
had made approximately $150,000 in five separate loans to two tribal
members.
• Loan purposes. Seven associations reported on the type of credit
they extended to Indian tribes and their members on tribal lands. In
general, they made short-term operating loans and short- and
intermediate-term loans for the purchase or refinance of items such as
machinery and equipment, livestock, vehicles, or buildings and
improvements. Two associations also reported making long-term real
estate loans. The other association that reported lending to tribes or
their members did not report on the types of loans it made.
• Type of collateral. Representatives of the eight associations that
reported lending to tribes or their members all indicated that the
associations secured loans with personal property, such as crops,
livestock, or equipment. In addition, the associations that reported
making real estate loans said they secured the loans with fee-simple
land.
Representatives of three FCS associations said they had not loaned to
Indian tribes in the past 2 years. One association had not received any
credit applications from tribal members, and another could not say if it
51
A representative of the remaining association stated that the association collects data
related to all of its lending, including loans to Indian borrowers. As noted earlier, creditors
are generally prohibited from inquiring about the race and other personal characteristics of
an applicant for a credit transaction that is subject to the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. 12
C.F.R. § 1002.5(b). One exception is that creditors may collect such data from credit
applicants in order to assess the creditor’s compliance with the Equal Credit Opportunity
Act. However, lenders may not use this information in decisions about whether to provide
credit or when setting the terms of the credit.
Page 24 GAO-19-464 Indian Issues
had served tribal members because of a lack of racial data on
borrowers.
52
The third association had not provided loans to tribal
members in the past 2 years, but the representative stated that it provided
several letters of credit to guarantee the payments of BIA leases on tribal
land.
Although the FCS associations we contacted stated they have the
resources to lend to tribes and their members on tribal lands, a few key
factors affect their lending decisions. Representatives of all 11 FCS
associations stated their associations had adequate financial capacity
and resources to make potentially more complicated or time-consuming
loans, such as those involving tribal lands. In general, they stated that the
factors they consider in deciding whether to loan to Indian tribes or their
members on tribal lands are the same as for any comparable loan—for
example, creditworthiness, loan purpose, and the ability to secure a lien
on collateral. However, as described earlier, some FCS association
representatives described challenges related to tribal law, jurisdiction,
tribal sovereign immunity, and recovery of collateral as complicating the
lending process to Indian tribes and their members on tribal lands.
Although three of the 11 FCS associations we queried reported making
loans to tribes that had waived their sovereign immunity for those
contracts, most loans the associations reported were to individual tribal
members and secured by personal property or fee-simple land.
According to two tribal stakeholders we interviewed, Indian tribes or tribal
members who received loans from FCS or other commercial lenders may
have larger agricultural operations, a longer credit history, and property
that can be more easily used as collateral. For example, an established
rancher may be able to secure operating loans with his or her cattle herd
or interests in fee-simple land, thus preventing the need to rely on trust
land as collateral.
At the national level, FCS—through its trade association, the Farm Credit
Council—conducts and facilitates outreach to tribes and tribal stakeholder
groups. According to a representative of the Farm Credit Council, the
Council and representatives of associations with tribal lands in their
territories participate in an informal FCS working group focused on
outreach and lending on tribal lands. One association representative
52
As noted earlier, in cases that did not involve lending, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled
that membership in a federally recognized Indian tribe is a political, not a racial,
classification.
Outreach
Page 25 GAO-19-464 Indian Issues
described the group as sharing examples of lending success or reasons
for missed opportunities; local, regional or national sponsorship
opportunities; local or regional agricultural education events; and relevant
legal proceedings, such as the Keepseagle settlement.
At the institution level, FCS associations must prepare annual marketing
plans describing, among other things, how they will be responsive to the
credit needs of all eligible and creditworthy agricultural producers in their
respective territories, with a focus on diversity and inclusion.
53
The
marketing plan must detail strategies and actions to market their products
and services to potential borrowers who may not have been considered
previously for reasons other than eligibility or creditworthiness. However,
FCS associations are not required to achieve specific outcomes or
quantifiable results.
Our nongeneralizable review of the marketing plans of the 11 selected
FCS associations with tribal lands in their territories and our analysis of
their written responses to our queries for additional information found that
outreach to tribes and their members focused on educational and
charitable initiatives and direct marketing about agricultural lending, or did
not directly target tribal populations.
• Seven of the 11 associations discussed actual or planned outreach to
Indian tribes or their members in their marketing plans or written
responses.
• Four of those seven associations cited financial support of specific
agricultural education activities for tribes and their members. Two
associations reported making charitable donations that benefited
tribal members.
• Four of the seven associations reported direct marketing to
potential tribal borrowers. However, in one case, the marketing
was a one-time conversation with a tribe regarding financing for a
new facility. The other three associations reported that they called
potential Indian borrowers, sought referrals from existing tribal
member customers, or conducted meetings with tribal government
officials.
53
FCS marketing plans are also required to include strategies and actions to promote
diversity and inclusion within the association’s workforce and management, on the basis
that diverse perspectives within institutions can help increase diversity among customers.
See, generally, 12 C.F.R. § 618.8440 and 77 Fed. Reg. 25577 (May 1, 2012).
Page 26 GAO-19-464 Indian Issues
• In general, the four remaining associations, in their marketing plans
and written responses, addressed outreach to minority producers
through broader methods, such as participation in ethnic group
organizations or through inclusion in the association’s overall outreach
and marketing efforts. In addition, five of the 11 associations
discussed outreach to minority producers in conjunction with their
statutorily-mandated outreach to young, beginning, and small farmers.
According to FCA officials, FCA’s guidance on providing credit to
young, beginning, and small farmers, as well as to local food
producers, would be broadly applicable to socially disadvantaged or
minority populations that fall within the program definitions.
Most of the tribal stakeholders with whom we spoke either were not
familiar with FCS or did not know of the tribe or any of its members
receiving FCS loans. One Native CDFI representative noted that although
he was not familiar with any members of his tribe receiving FCS loans, he
thought other nearby tribes or their members had worked with FCS.
FCA also encouraged FCS associations to develop underwriting
procedures to facilitate lending on Indian reservations.
54
FCA identified
one FCS association that developed such procedures, and another one of
the associations we queried noted that they had such procedures. The
first association provided an overview of its procedures, which identified
links to information on borrower and collateral eligibility and actions that
require BIA approval, among other topics. According to representatives of
the second association, its procedure manual directs loan officers to treat
tribal members’ applications for loans secured by personal property the
same as any other applications. In addition, they said the manual
54
In general, lenders must comply with applicable fair lending laws, including the Equal
Credit Opportunity Act. For example, with regard to mortgage lending in Indian Country,
the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has stated that while lenders may consider
risks and costs in setting the terms and conditions for loans, the procedures should be
based on documented differences in risks and costs, rather than speculative or
generalized assumptions. See Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Guide to
Mortgage Lending in Indian Country (Washington, D.C.: 1997). FCA took a similar position
in the past, when it evaluated an institution’s procedures for lending on Indian
reservations. In that case, the institution’s procedures required additional security in the
form of government guarantees on any loan for which reservation land was pledged as
collateral. The association based the additional security requirement in part on
generalized concerns that tribal courts were inadequate forums in which to recover
collateral, rather than evidence regarding the courts of the specific tribe in question. FCA
ultimately determined that the institution’s procedures were not consistent with the Equal
Credit Opportunity Act, and required that the procedures be withdrawn.
Page 27 GAO-19-464 Indian Issues
contains instructions for working with BIA for real estate loans to tribal
members on trust land and for making direct loans to tribes.
Our review of literature and interviews with experts, tribal stakeholders,
FCS associations, Farm Credit Council representatives, and FCA officials
identified the following options for improving access to agricultural credit
on tribal lands.
• Partnerships with local lenders. Tribal economic development
experts and tribal stakeholders cited the importance of commercial or
government lenders partnering with Native CDFIs and other Indian-
owned lenders, which are the most capable of navigating the
challenges related to Indian agricultural credit. According to these
experts and stakeholders, if larger commercial or government lenders
worked with Native CDFIs or other tribal lenders (such as tribal banks
or economic development corporations) to provide funds or conduct
outreach, the tribal organizations could more efficiently reach Indian
tribes and their members. They noted these organizations are familiar
with tribal members and the administrative processes for obtaining
loans on tribal land. Partnership with tribal lenders and other tribal
businesses also could support tribes’ efforts to improve members’
loan readiness, according to literature we reviewed and a tribal
economic development expert and a Native CDFI representative we
interviewed.
55
Commercial and government lenders may need to clarify whether
tribal lenders with which they might partner meet their lending
requirements. For example, although FCS banks have authority to
lend to OFIs, which in turn can lend to FCS-eligible borrowers, only
55
The executive director of a Native CDFI has noted that because Native CDFIs are
mission-driven, they offer development services—such as financial education and
business training—that banks do not. See Tanya Fiddler, “Working Together: Effective
Partnerships between Native CDFIs and Banks Bridge the Financing Gap in Indian
Country” August 2013, accessed on March 21, 2019.
https://www.occ.gov/publications/publications-by-type/other-publications-reports/cdi-newsl
etter/extending-credit-indian-country-aug-2013/indian-country-ezine-article-7-working-toge
ther.html. In addition, a 2017 study on mortgage lending on tribal lands similarly noted the
importance of commercial lenders partnering with tribes and local nonprofits serving tribal
members to provide homebuyer education. See David Listokin, et al., Mortgage Lending
on Tribal Land.
Stakeholders
Discussed Lender
Partnerships, Loan
Guarantees, and
Other Options to
Improve Agricultural
Credit Access on
Tribal Lands
Page 28 GAO-19-464 Indian Issues
certain types of CDFIs may qualify as OFIs.
56
In addition, this
authority does not extend to long-term funding, and thus cannot be
used to fund agricultural real estate loans made by OFIs.
57
One FCS
bank that commented on a 2004 FCA rule noted the latter statutory
limitation as a major impediment to OFI program expansion.
• Flexibility with collateral requirements. As noted earlier, multiple
stakeholders we interviewed discussed the challenges related to
collateralizing trust land. In addition, FCA officials cited the need for a
statutory change or clarification of the requirement that long-term
loans made by FCS be secured by a first lien on interests in real
estate.
58
They said that by removing or clarifying this requirement,
lenders would have authority to provide larger, longer-term loans to
creditworthy tribes or tribal members who cannot mortgage their tribal
lands.
• Guarantees. Some stakeholders we interviewed mentioned loan
guarantees as an option to improve access to agricultural credit on
tribal lands. For instance, FCA officials and Farm Credit Council
representatives told us they had spoken with leadership of the Native
American Agriculture Fund (created as part of the Keepseagle
settlement) regarding the potential establishment of a loan guarantee
fund, such as a first-loss fund, which would step in to purchase a loan
in default (thus substantially reducing credit risk to the lender). In
addition, three of the 11 FCS associations we queried identified
guarantees as a possible way to increase FCS lending to Indian tribes
and their members on tribal lands.
FCS associations still face challenges in using guarantees. With
regard to the first-loss loan guarantee fund, FCS associations still
must adhere to the FCS statutory requirement for a first-position lien
on interests in real estate for long-term loans. According to an FCA
official, although the first-loss loan guarantee fund could mitigate
56
OFIs can include banks, credit unions, agricultural credit corporations, and certain other
entities engaged in the making of loans to agricultural producers. 12 U.S.C. §
2015(b)(1)(B) and 12 C.F.R. § 614.4540. The preamble to an FCA rule confirms that
CDFIs that are community development banks or community development credit unions
could qualify as an OFI. 69 Fed. Reg. 29852, 29860 (May 26, 2004). However, most
Native CDFIs operate as loan funds chartered as state corporations, the eligibility of which
the preamble to the FCA rule did not address.
57
69 Fed. Reg. 29852, 29859 (May 26, 2004).
58
Two FCS stakeholders called for statutory or regulatory clarification on whether
leasehold interests in real estate can satisfy this statutory requirement. But as noted
earlier, FCA already published a legal opinion to that effect (07-01).
Page 29 GAO-19-464 Indian Issues
repayment risk, a statutory change or clarification would be necessary
for FCS associations to accept guarantees in lieu of real estate for
long-term loans. And as noted earlier, FCS loans are statutorily
ineligible for BIA’s loan guarantee program. Two FCS associations
noted that removal of this restriction could increase FCS lending on
tribal lands. Finally, FCA officials stated that challenges FCS
associations face in making loans involving tribal lands also can
extend to Farm Service Agency guarantees on those loans. In other
words, to obtain such guarantees, FCS associations must navigate
issues around land tenure, legal jurisdiction, and tribal laws.
• Tribal options. In addition, stakeholders discussed the following tribal
actions that could increase credit access for tribes and their members:
• Representatives of two FCS associations noted that waivers of
sovereign immunity (limited to specific contracts) by tribes may
increase lending involving tribal lands, as it helps to enable
lenders to enforce the terms of loans made to tribes. According to
the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, some banks have
negotiated limited waivers of sovereign immunity (restricted to a
specific transaction). As noted earlier, tribes may decide that
waiving sovereign immunity is not in their best interest. In addition
to the limited waivers of sovereign immunity, representatives of
three FCS institutions stated that increased adoption of uniform
commercial laws (such as the Uniform Commercial Code) by
tribes could increase lending involving tribal lands.
• One tribal economic development expert told us that tribes that
adopted their own leasing regulations under the HEARTH Act
have seen substantially increased economic development. As
noted earlier, the HEARTH Act provides tribes with greater
flexibility to enter into leases for agriculture or other purposes.
Once a tribe’s leasing regulations have been approved by the
Secretary of the Interior, tribes may negotiate and enter into
agricultural leases with 25-year terms without further approval by
the Secretary.
59
The combination of longer lease terms and the
ability to conduct business outside of the BIA approval process
can expedite the process of obtaining a leasehold mortgage on
tribal trust and restricted fee land. As of May 1, 2019, the
59
25 U.S.C. § 415(h).
Page 30 GAO-19-464 Indian Issues
Secretary had approved agricultural leasing regulations for seven
tribes under the HEARTH Act.
60
We provided a draft of this report to FCA, Interior, and USDA for review
and comment. FCA and USDA provided technical comments, which we
incorporated as appropriate. In comments provided in an email, Interior
officials noted that efforts to simplify the Secretary of the Interior’s
approval process could provide faster mortgage determinations and thus
may result in expanded lending and production opportunities for Indian
agricultural producers.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional
committees, the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Farm Credit
Administration, the Secretary of the Interior, and the Secretary of
Agriculture. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO
website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact
me at (202) 512-8678 or cac[email protected]. Contact points for our
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on
the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this
report are listed in appendix II.
Alicia Puente Cackley
Director, Financial Markets and Community Investment
60
In addition, the Secretary of the Interior approved the Navajo Nation’s agricultural
leasing regulations pursuant to other statutory authority, thus allowing the tribe to lease its
trust and restricted fee land for agricultural purposes without Secretarial approval. 25
U.S.C. § 415(e). We recently reported BIA’s review and approval process for 42 proposed
leasing regulations that tribes submitted in 2012–2017 often took at least a year. We
recommended that Interior and BIA develop a clearly documented process with
established time frames for each step in the process for reviewing proposed tribal leasing
regulations submitted under the HEARTH Act. Interior concurred with the recommendation
but had not implemented it as of May 2019. See GAO, Indian Programs: Interior Should
Address Factors Hindering Tribal Administration of Federal Programs, GAO-19-87
(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 3, 2019).
Agency Comments
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology
Page 31 GAO-19-464 Indian Issues
Our objectives in the report were to describe (1) what is known about the
agricultural credit needs of Indian tribes and their members on tribal
lands, (2) the barriers stakeholders and experts identified that Indian
tribes and their members on tribal lands face in obtaining agricultural
credit to meet their needs, (3) the Farm Credit System’s (FCS) lending
authority and lending and outreach activities on tribal land, and (4)
suggestions stakeholders have discussed to improve access to
agricultural credit on tribal lands.
For the purpose of this report, we use the term “tribal lands” to refer to
reservations (including all land within the reservations’ boundaries), trust
land, allotments, and restricted fee land. In general, our report focuses on
the agricultural credit needs of tribes and their members in the lower 48
states.
To describe what is known about the agricultural credit needs of Indian
tribes and their members on tribal lands, we explored various potential
data sources on agricultural loans that Indian tribes and their members
applied for or received. We reviewed available data from the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau and Department of Agriculture (USDA). For
example, we obtained borrower-reported loan data from USDA’s
Agricultural Resource Management Survey, but for several data fields
related to Indian producers on tribal lands, sample sizes were too small or
the coefficients of variation were too high to produce reliable estimates.
We also reviewed provisions of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, federal
regulations, and other legal documentation pertaining to collection of data
regarding the personal characteristics of applicants for nonresidential
loans.
To describe what is known about Indian tribes and their members’
agricultural credit needs and the barriers they face in obtaining
agricultural credit, we conducted a literature review. We conducted
searches of various databases, such as EBSCO, ProQuest, Google
Scholar, and Westlaw to identify sources such as peer-reviewed
academic studies; law review articles; trade and industry articles; reports
from government agencies, nonprofits, and think tanks; and
Congressional transcripts related to tribal agriculture, barriers to
accessing credit on tribal lands, and FCS. We identified additional
materials through citations in literature we reviewed. In addition, we
reviewed statutes and the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Indian
Affairs’ (BIA) regulations related to use and ownership of tribal lands,
including leasing.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology
Page 32 GAO-19-464 Indian Issues
To describe FCS’s authority and lending and outreach activities on tribal
lands, we reviewed statutes and regulations governing FCS, as well as
written guidance issued by the Farm Credit Administration (FCA). We
also reviewed the marketing plans of a nongeneralizable sample of 11
FCS associations (16 percent of the 69 FCS associations that lend
directly to agricultural producers) whose territories included large tribal
land areas with high levels of agricultural activity, including the tribes we
interviewed (described below). We selected an additional FCS
association but on closer review realized it did not have a significant
amount of tribal land in its territory; we therefore excluded this association
from our analysis. For comparison purposes, we also reviewed three
marketing plans from FCS associations that did not have significant tribal
populations in their territories. In addition to reviewing the marketing
plans, we sent the 11 FCS associations a questionnaire about their
lending and outreach to tribes and their members and any challenges in
making loans involving tribal lands. We also asked these associations
about any suggestions to improve access to agricultural credit on tribal
lands. We received responses from all 11 FCS associations, and followed
up with some associations to clarify information they provided. While the
sample allowed us to learn about many important aspects of FCS
associations’ lending and outreach to tribes and their members on tribal
lands, it was designed to provide anecdotal information, not findings that
would be representative of all of 69 FCS lending associations.
To address all four objectives, we attempted to interview representatives
of six tribes. First, we selected these tribes to represent five regions
(Great Plains, Rocky Mountain, Northwest, Southwest) and a state
(Oklahoma) that—according to experts we interviewed—have tribes
engaged in agricultural activity. Within these regions, we generally
selected large tribal land areas that have high levels of agricultural
activity, as indicated by the USDA 2012 Census of Agriculture data.
1
Specifically, we selected tribes based on number of farms, land in farms,
and market value of agricultural products. In addition, we selected one of
the six tribes because two experts recommended that we speak with
them. For the six tribes, we contacted tribal government leaders and
employees of the relevant government offices, such as the agriculture or
tribal lands departments.
1
Department of Agriculture, 2012 Census of Agriculture: American Indian Reservations,
Subject Series, Part 5, AC-12-S-5 (Washington, D.C.: August 2014).
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology
Page 33 GAO-19-464 Indian Issues
• For two of the six tribes, we interviewed employees of the tribal
agriculture department. One of these interviews also included
representatives of the Native Community Development Financial
Institution (Native CDFI) that serves the reservation.
• For the third tribe, we received written responses from a tribal farm.
• For the fourth tribe, we interviewed a representative of the Native
CDFI that serves the reservation.
• For this series of interviews, we only received information relating to
four tribes. We did not obtain meetings with relevant tribal government
officials for the last two tribes.
We also contacted farms or Native CDFIs associated with an additional
three tribes based on USDA data or recommendations from experts we
interviewed. For one of these tribes, we interviewed a tribal farm
employee and a representative of the tribe’s community development
corporation. For the second tribe, we interviewed a tribal farm employee.
For the third tribe, we interviewed a representative of the Native CDFI that
serves the reservation.
In summary, we interviewed employees of two tribal agriculture
departments, employees of three tribal farms, and representatives of
three Native CDFIs and one tribal community development corporation.
Throughout this report, we refer to tribal government employees, tribal
farm employees, or representatives of Native CDFIs or community
development corporations serving a tribe as “tribal stakeholders.”
Although the information we obtained from the tribal agriculture
employees allowed us to provide anecdotal tribal perspectives, it is not
generalizable to the 573 federally recognized Indian tribes. In addition,
the views of tribal farm employees and Native CDFI and community
development corporation representatives cannot be generalized to tribes
but illustrate views on needs, barriers, and other issues from the
perspectives of the organizations.
In addition, for all four objectives, we interviewed the following:
• Experts on agricultural and economic development on tribal
lands. We interviewed subject matter experts on tribal agriculture and
economic development from various organizations, including
advocacy and academia. Specifically, we interviewed representatives
of the following organizations: the Center for Indian Country
Development at the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, First
Nations Oweesta Corporation, the Indian Land Tenure Foundation,
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology
Page 34 GAO-19-464 Indian Issues
the Indigenous Food and Agriculture Initiative at the University of
Arkansas, the Intertribal Agriculture Council, and the Native American
Agriculture Fund. We selected these organizations based on relevant
publications, testimonies before Congress, or recommendations from
other experts. These organizations work with a number of tribes and
thus could speak to general trends or commonalities in tribal
agriculture and economic development. Throughout the report, we
refer to the representatives of these organizations as “experts.”
• Agency and trade group representatives. We interviewed officials
from FCA, USDA (including the Farm Service Agency, Economic
Research Service, and National Agricultural Statistics Service), and
BIA. We also interviewed representatives of the Farm Credit Council,
the national trade association for the Farm Credit System.
We conducted this performance audit from December 2018 to May 2019
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff
Acknowledgments
Page 35 GAO-19-464 Indian Issues
Alicia Puente Cackley, (202) 512-8678, [email protected]
In addition to the contact named above, Karen Tremba (Assistant
Director), Lisa Reynolds (Analyst in Charge), Miranda Berry, Tom Cook,
Anne-Marie Fennell, John Karikari, Marc Molino, Kirsten Noethen,
Barbara Roesmann, Jeanette Soares, and Farrah Stone made significant
contributions to this report.
Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff
Acknowledgments
GAO Contact
Staff
Acknowledgements
(103249)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and investigative
arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the
federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public
funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses,
recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed
oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government
is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is
through GAO’s website (https://www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO
posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. To
have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, go to https://www.gao.gov
and select “E-mail Updates.”
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of production and
distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether
the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering
information is posted on GAO’s website, https://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm.
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard,
Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.
Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at https://www.gao.gov.
Contact FraudNet:
Website: https://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7700
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125,
Washington, DC 20548
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, DC 20548
James-Christian Blockwood, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202) 512-4707
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814,
Washington, DC 20548
GAO’s Mission
Obtaining Copies of
GAO Reports and
Testimony
Order by Phone
Connect with GAO
To Report Fraud,
Waste, and Abuse in
Federal Programs
Congressional
Relations
Public Affairs
Strategic Planning and
External Liaison
Please Print on Recycled Paper.
