Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/6716

Bill Overview

Title: Native American Burial Sites and Cultural Resources Protection Act

Description: This bill directs the Department of the Army to identify, and cooperate with appropriate property owners to set aside, areas that may be used for the reburial of Native American human remains and funerary objects that have been identified or discovered at the site of a civil works project carried out, or operated and maintained, using federal funds; have been rightfully claimed by any affected Indian tribe; and can be reburied in a manner secure from future disturbances. Army shall issue written guidance for recovery and reburial that meets or exceeds the recovery and reburial standards in policy statements and guidance issued by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Army may not exercise the power of eminent domain to acquire any property for use for reburial. Army may convey to an affected Indian tribe for use as a cemetery or reburial area any area that is located on land owned by Army and has been identified and set aside in accordance with this bill.

Sponsors: Rep. LaMalfa, Doug [R-CA-1]

Target Audience

Population: Native American communities

Estimated Size: 9700000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Tribal Cultural Preservation Officer (Arizona)

Age: 45 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy is crucial for the protection of our ancestors. It will give peace of mind and help us preserve our cultural heritage.
  • I believe this sets a strong precedent for respectful treatment of burial sites.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 7
Year 2 8 7
Year 3 9 7
Year 5 9 7
Year 10 10 8
Year 20 10 8

Farmer (North Dakota)

Age: 60 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I support the protection of burial sites, but I hope it doesn't interfere with my agricultural activities.
  • As long as my property isn't taken without consent, I can work with the policy.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 5
Year 2 5 5
Year 3 6 5
Year 5 6 5
Year 10 6 5
Year 20 6 5

Environmental Consultant (Washington)

Age: 37 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy forms an important part of my work and it is vital for the cultural preservation of these areas.
  • This will probably increase the demand for thorough cultural assessments, which is good for my business.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 8 6
Year 5 8 7
Year 10 9 7
Year 20 9 8

Tribal Elder (Oklahoma)

Age: 52 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Finally, a federal action that respects our burial traditions and gives agency to tribes in protecting sites.
  • This will strengthen our community as we safeguard our history.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 9 8
Year 2 9 8
Year 3 10 8
Year 5 10 8
Year 10 10 8
Year 20 10 8

Army Corps Engineer (California)

Age: 28 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy will require us to collaborate more with Native communities, which is a positive step for inclusivity in our projects.
  • It may increase project timelines, but it's worth it for the cultural respect it fosters.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 8 6
Year 3 8 6
Year 5 8 6
Year 10 9 7
Year 20 9 7

Retired Historian (New Mexico)

Age: 70 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • A necessary policy that acknowledges historical injustices and aims to rectify them.
  • Hopeful that it induces more comprehensive protections over time.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 7
Year 2 8 7
Year 3 9 7
Year 5 9 7
Year 10 9 7
Year 20 9 8

Park Ranger (Montana)

Age: 33 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 12.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Policies like this assist in public education efforts about cultural importance and visitation policies.
  • We need more comprehensive plans like these to preserve and protect cultural sites.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 7
Year 2 8 7
Year 3 8 7
Year 5 9 7
Year 10 9 8
Year 20 9 8

Journalist (South Dakota)

Age: 40 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This legislation highlights important cultural issues that have long been overlooked.
  • It's a positive change that will help protect our heritage for future generations.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 9 8
Year 2 9 8
Year 3 9 8
Year 5 10 8
Year 10 10 9
Year 20 10 9

Student (Texas)

Age: 25 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy is a vital step for inclusion and reflects respect for Native traditions.
  • I hope it leads to more research opportunities and educational outreach.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 8 6
Year 3 8 6
Year 5 8 7
Year 10 9 7
Year 20 9 8

Tribal Activist (Alaska)

Age: 50 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Though far removed, policies like this reinforce the ongoing battle for indigenous rights nationally.
  • It may not have an immediate effect here, but it brings hope and potential for similar actions.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 7 6
Year 10 8 7
Year 20 9 8

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $30000000)

Year 2: $21000000 (Low: $15750000, High: $31500000)

Year 3: $22050000 (Low: $16537500, High: $33075000)

Year 5: $24255000 (Low: $18191250, High: $36382500)

Year 10: $29200000 (Low: $21900000, High: $36500000)

Year 100: $84000000 (Low: $63000000, High: $105000000)

Key Considerations