    [Senate Hearing 108-122]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 108-122

                        INDIAN RESERVATIONS ROAD PROGRAM

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                          COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                          ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                       ON

                        S. 281, S. 725, S. 1122, S. 1165

            PROPOSALS TO AMEND THE INDIAN RESERVATIONS ROAD PROGRAM

                                   __________

                                  JUNE 4, 2003
                                 WASHINGTON, DC

    87-740              U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
                                WASHINGTON : 2003
    ____________________________________________________________________________
    For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
    Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
    Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001

                          COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

                  BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado, Chairman

                    DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Vice Chairman

    JOHN McCAIN, Arizona,                KENT CONRAD, North Dakota
    PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico         HARRY REID, Nevada
    CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming                DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
    ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah                 BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
    JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma            TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
    GORDON SMITH, Oregon                 MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
    LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska

             Paul Moorehead, Majority Staff Director/Chief Counsel

            Patricia M. Zell, Minority Staff Director/Chief Counsel

                                      (ii)

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    S. 281, S. 725, S. 1122, and S. 1165, text of....................     3
    Statements:
        Bingamin, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from New Mexico............    79
        Bullard, Loretta, president, Kawerak, Inc., Nome, AK.........   101
        Buzzard, Harley, director of roads, Cherokee Nation Tribal
          Council....................................................    92
        Campbell, Hon. Ben Nighthorse, U.S. Senator from Colorado,
          chairman, Committee on Indian Affairs......................     1
        Domenici, Hon. Pete V., U.S. Senator from New Mexico.........    80
        Garrigan, James, transportation planner, Red Lake Band of
          Chippewa Indians of Minnesota, Red Lake, MN................    98
        Gishi, Leroy, chief, Division of Transportation, BIA.........    82
        Hamilton, Arthur E., associate administrator for Federal
          Lands Highway, Federal Highway Administration, Department
          of Transportation, Washington, DC..........................    81
        Johnson, Hon. Tim, U.S. Senator from South Dakota............    77
        Martin, Jackie Bob, chairman, Resources Committee, Cherokee
          Nation Tribal Council......................................    92
        Maryboy, Mark, chairman, Navajo Transportation and Community
          Development Committee, Navajo Nation Council...............    90
        Milonovich, Richard, chairman, Agua Caliente Band of
          Cahuilla, Palm Springs, CA.................................    95
        Shirley, Jr., Joe, president, Navajo Nation, Window Rock, AZ.    90
        Smith, Chadwick, chairman, Cherokee Nation, Tahlequah, OK....    92
        Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from Wyoming................    78
        Virden, Terry, director, BIA, Department of the Interior,
          Washington, DC.............................................    82

                                    Appendix

    Prepared statements:
        Bullard, Loretta (with attachment)...........................   111
        Garrigan, James (with attachment)............................   123
        Hamilton, Arthur E...........................................   140
        Inter-Tribal Council of the Five Civilized Tribes............   153
        Maryboy, Mark................................................   109
        Milonovich, Richard (with attachment)........................   156
        Ockert, general manager, Reservation Transportation Authority   173
        Shirley, Jr., Joe (with attachment)..........................   175
        Smith, Chadwick (with attachments)...........................   185
        Virden, Terry................................................   196
    Additional material submitted for the record:
        Hecker, JayEtta, director, Physical Infrastructure Issues,
          GAO, letter to Hon. Frank R. Wolf, House of Representatives   201
        Johnson, Anthony D., chairman, Nez Perce Tribal Executive
          Committee, letter..........................................   212
        National Tribal Leadership Paper on Tribal Transportation
          Policy.....................................................   168

    PROPOSALS TO AMEND THE INDIAN RESERVATIONS ROAD PROGRAM: S. 281, INDIAN
     TRIBAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2003; S. 725 AND S.
     1122, TRIBAL TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2003; S. 1165,
       AMERICAN INDIAN RESERVATION TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ACT

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, JUNE 4, 2003

                                           U.S. Senate,
                                   Committee on Indian Affairs,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m. in
    room 485, Senate Russell Building, Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell
    (chairman of the committee) presiding.
        Present: Senators Campbell, Johnson, Thomas, Domenici, and
    Murkowski.

     STATEMENT OF HON. BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, U.S. SENATOR FROM
            COLORADO, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

        The Chairman. The Committee on Indian Affairs will be in
    session.
        Senator Inouye will be along shortly, but we will go ahead
    and get started.
        Welcome to the committee's hearing on various legislative
    proposals to reauthorize the Indian Reservation Roads program;
    60 percent of roads in the IRR system remain unpaved, which has
    obvious impacts on the tribes' ability to improve their
    economies. Rural Indian communities having paved roads often
    means the difference between life and death in terms of fire
    and police protection, ambulance service, and our growing
    concern with homeland security.
        As of this past Monday, four Indian roads bills are pending
    before the committee: S. 281, which I introduced, S. 725, which
    Senator Bingaman introduced, S. 1122, by Senator Johnson, and
    S. 1165, by Senator Domenici. Today we will hear from Federal
    and tribal witnesses to determine how best to reform the IRR
    program. I will tell the members that it is my intention to
    report a bill by the end of June as part of the larger TEA-21
    reauthorization which will be on the Senate floor in July.
        [Text of S. 281, S. 725, S. 1122, and S. 1165 follow:]

        The Chairman. With that, Senator Johnson, did you have any
    opening comments before we start?
        Senator Johnson. Yes; just briefly, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you for holding this important hearing today. I
    appreciate your leadership on this. I have a full statement I
    would like to submit for the record.
        The Chairman. Without objection, it will be included in the
    record.

     STATEMENT OF HON. TIM JOHNSON, U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA

        Senator Johnson. I want to thank you as well as Senator
    Bingaman for work in this important area. I also want to
    express appreciation to the NCAI and my own Standing Rock Sioux
    Tribe for their leadership on tribal transportation issues. The
    tribes, in conjunction with the NCAI put a lot of time and
    effort into developing ideas that can be incorporated into
    legislation. It is important that these ideas were developed by
    the very people who have to implement these programs to deal
    with transportation challenges every day.
        My bill, S. 1122, is the result of the work of the tribes
    in the NCAI. It is a comprehensive effort. I know that you, Mr.
    Chairman, and Senator Bingaman, have put a great deal of effort
    into transportation bills. This has been designed to be a
    comprehensive and ambitious effort. I think it is important
    that we get all the issues out on the table.
        Just very quickly, S. 1122, in addition to obviously
    increasing the amount of funding for the IRR funding, beefs up
    the Tribal Transportation Safety Program, providing more funds
    for purposes such as widening shoulders, and more guardrails.
        Second, it assures that tribes can apply for scenic byways
    status through the Federal system.
        Third, it assures that tribes can derive direct funding
    from the Federal Government rather than having the programs be
    implemented through the States.
        Fourth, it takes a hard look at the maintenance issue. It
    makes no sense to me that we should put significant
    expenditures into the building of roads if we are not going to
    provide enough funding to keep those roads properly maintained.
        Fifth, it explores the idea of having a high-ranking person
    at DOT who can assist the tribes in their navigation through
    the system.
        Over the past 2 weeks I have spent a great deal of time
    traveling around South Dakota, including travels throughout our
    Indian reservations, including the Pine Ridge Reservation.
    Frankly, the conditions of some of these roads is horrible. It
    is a public safety menace. It is a detriment to economic
    development. It is simply its own fare to tribal people. The
    Federal Government has fallen down on its treaty and trust
    obligations. It has enormous consequences in Indian country.
        Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this hearing. I look forward
    to the testimony. I hope that as we go on through this year
    that we can merge a lot of these ideas together in a way that
    will be constructive and which will significantly enhance the
    quality of transportation and the safety of transportation in
    Indian country.
        The Chairman. Thank you. I agree with you. I think there
    are important provisions in each of the four bills. Hopefully
    we will be able to merge those and come out with a composite
    that is in the best interest of Indian people.
        Senator Thomas.

          STATEMENT OF CRAIG THOMAS, U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING

        Senator Thomas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I, too, appreciate your having this hearing. Certainly it
    is very important. Indian country is part of the concerns that
    we have about highways. We need to have more transportation
    support there.
        I have an unique involvement here in that I am on the
    Finance Committee that has jurisdiction over the taxes paid. I
    am also on the Committee on Environment and Public Works, which
    is reauthorizing TEA-21. I understand the importance of that
    investment. I am interested in hearing about Senator Bingaman's
    bill.
        I do want to caution my fellow members that we need to
    remember that TEA-21 includes a number of very important
    programs. We must be careful that we are not disproportionate
    of one over another. We have significant increases in the
    Reservation Road Program. Where is that funding coming from?
    Are we going to increase taxes? Are we going to reduce State
    highway funding? If we double that, we are going to have to
    find some other additional sources.
        I did a little checking. I think certainly it is important
    that we do this. Reservation roads have some Indian Reservation
    Road Program money in there as well as the Department of
    Transportation, the county road funding, and the State gas tax.
    So we need to look at the balance of how we do this. It is
    going to be a challenge. There is a great deal of discussion
    about the donors and the recipients in the gas tax proposition.
    There are some opportunities to raise the gas tax. Most people
    are not in favor of that.
        I guess what we are looking for is a fair distribution of
    these dollars that are available. I think this is an excellent
    hearing. I am glad you are having it. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Senator Domenici, did you have any comments before we
    start?
        Senator Domenici. Mr. Chairman, I was here either as a
    member or as a witness, whichever the Chair prefers, with
    reference to the highway funding bill, which I have introduced,
    along with four or five other Senators. Thank you.
        The Chairman. With that, we will go ahead and start.
        Senator Bingaman, welcome to the Committee.
        Senator Domenici, do you also want to testify on S. 1165?
        Senator Domenici. No; I have a separate bill.
        The Chairman. Okay. We will start with Senator Bingaman.

     STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO

        Senator Bingaman. Mr. Chairman, let me join with all the
    other members in thanking you for holding the hearing on this
    important issue.
        As you pointed out, there is a bill that you have
    introduced, S. 281. Senator Domenici's bill is S. 1165 that he
    has introduced. Senators Johnson and Daschle have introduced S.
    1122. I have introduced S. 725. There are many bills before the
    committee for consideration. I think we are fortunate today
    that President Joe Shirley of the Navajo Nation is here as well
    as Mark Maryboy of the Tribal Council, to testify. The Navajo
    Nation is the largest tribe with the largest land area. Their
    voice in this issue is extremely important.
        The point that Senator Thomas made about trying to decide
    how to allocate the funds that are available for highways is
    exactly the right issue for us to concentrate on. In that
    regard, there is one statistic I want to cite to the Committee
    because I think it is important. The IRR program is currently
    authorized for $275 million per year. This level represents
    less than 1 percent of the annual Federal funding for road
    construction and rehabilitation. However, the 50,000 miles in
    the IRR system represent about 5 percent of the Nation's
    957,000 miles of Federal-aid highways. In my view, if you are
    looking at a fair allocation, we are not providing that today
    with the current authorized level. We need to increase that.
        The main trust of the bill I have introduced, along with
    Senators Feinstein and Leahy is to increase that authorization
    and to do so in a way that will allow some of the real problems
    in this road construction to be dealt with. The BIA now
    estimates the backlog in transportation needs at almost $10
    billion, up from $6.8 billion just 4 years ago.
        I was disappointed, as I am sure all of you were, that in
    the appropriations process this year we reduced the level of
    funding available for the Indian Reservation Roads Program by
    $40 million, from $280 million last year to about $240 million
    this year. Last month there were 15 Senators, some of you
    included, who signed a letter to the Appropriations Committee
    requesting a $350-million appropriation for the program in this
    upcoming year, in 2004.
        Funding for tribal transportation programs needs to be one
    of our top priorities as we go into this reauthorization of
    TEA-21. The bills that you have before you, I think, give you a
    very good basis upon which to report out constructive
    legislation on this subject. As I understand it, the tribes'
    single highest priority transportation issue is adequate
    funding.
        The goal of the bill that I introduced is to improve basic
    transportation and promote the independence and self-
    determination of Indian people. It is essential that Indian
    country be heard in this reauthorizing process. I think this
    hearing is a major step in that direction.
        I appreciate the chance to speak briefly. I know you have
    many witnesses here who will give you great insight into the
    needs and the justification for some of these bills. Thank you
    again, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Bingaman.
        Senator Domenici, would you like to say a few words about
    S. 1165?

       STATEMENT OF HON. PETE V. DOMENICI, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW
                                 MEXICO

        Senator Domenici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        It has been 30 years or more since we started this set-
    aside out of the Highway Trust Fund. Before that, it was just
    hit or miss, and get what we could. I was very pleased to be
    part of the very first bill with Senator Patrick Moynihan. Each
    time since we have had an opportunity to introduce a bill. Each
    time we have substantially increased the amount, knowing full
    well, the increased needs.
        The bill that I have introduced, which you have cosponsored
    along with three other Senators, including Senator Bingaman, I
    believe is the minimum amount that we should proceed with. It
    increases the amount of the request to $330 million in the
    first year and a $30-million increase each year thereafter.
        In addition to that, however, it does two or three things
    that are very much needed. First of all, it is important that
    the moneys that are set aside for the building of bridges, that
    the Indian people be allowed to use that money for planning and
    engineering purposes. This bill gives them that authority.
    Otherwise, we find a hiatus; the money is there for the
    building but the money is not there for the planning and the
    design. In addition, we increase the contract authority
    substantially. That, too, is very much needed and was requested
    specifically in negotiations with the Navajo Nation.
        All in all, Mr. Chairman, I believe that S. 1165, the
    American Indian Reservation Transportation Improvement Act, is
    an excellent bill. I have more detail regarding it in a
    statement and a summary. It also creates for the first time an
    Indian reservation rural transit program. It authorizes $20
    million each year for that purpose. That is the program as
    compared with the highways.
        I think it is very important that we start by having every
    entity in our country that manages and has roads to have a
    program surrounding it with professionals. The creation of that
    would be very important.
        Thank you for letting me spend just a few moments. Senator
    Inouye has joined me in my bill, as have you. I thank him and
    you for that. I urge not only that you move expeditiously to
    pick the best bill, but that we collectively pursue with some
    degree of vigor the committee of jurisdiction, and thereafter
    as suggested by Senator Bingaman, that we pursue the
    appropriators so that we do not have our Indian people
    expecting a high level, to find that the appropriations process
    has reduced it substantially.
        Since we have begun this rather significant set-aside
    process under the name and nomenclature of an Indian set-aside
    for roads, we have made significant gains, especially in Navajo
    lands where it is quite obvious that the open spaces require
    roads. When you finally see them built, it is quite obvious
    that they are links that are heavily used for many purposes by
    the Navajo people to improve their daily lives. I thank you for
    that, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be with the President
    of the Navajo Nation. I wish him the best in his new job as
    leader of the Navajo people.
        Thank you very much.
        The Chairman. Thank you. I look forward to working with
    you, Senator Bingaman, and Senator Johnson in trying to make a
    composite bill that takes the best features of all of them.
    Hopefully we can move it through as quickly as we can.
        Thank you, Senator Bingaman.
        We will now begin with our first panel. That will be Arthur
    Hamilton, Associate Administrator for Federal Lands Highway,
    Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation,
    Washington, DC. We will also hear from Terry Virden, Director,
    Bureau of Indian Affairs [BIA] Department of the Interior,
    Washington, DC.
        Your complete written statements will be included in the
    record. If you want to abbreviate your statement, you are
    welcome to do so.
        We will go ahead and start with Mr. Hamilton since I
    introduced him first.

     STATEMENT OF ARTHUR E. HAMILTON, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR
        FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY, FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION,
              DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, WASHINGTON, DC

        Mr. Hamilton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I am honored to testify on two legislative proposals for
    amending the Indian Reservation Road Program now before this
    committee. I would also like to highlight some provisions in
    the Administration's bill, SAFETEA, that address tribal
    transportation needs.
        Secretary Mineta has described transportation as the
    critical tool for economic development and quality of life in a
    community. The Administration is committed to providing safe
    and efficient transportation, for both residents and visitors,
    for access to and within Indian lands and Alaska Native
    villages, while protecting the environment and cultural
    resources.
        We want to work with this committee, with tribes, and with
    the BIA to improve the Indian Reservation Road Program, and to
    increase tribal participation in the overall Federal aid
    program.
        SAFETEA proposes a funding increase for the IRR program of
    almost 25 percent over the TEA-21 authorized level, nearly $2
    billion total over a 6-year period. SAFETEA would provide the
    IRR program with obligation authority equal to contract
    authority, as also proposed by Senators Campbell and Bingaman.
    We believe that with full OA, the funding increase proposed in
    SAFETEA can make a substantial contribution toward meeting IRR
    program needs, and is sustainable based on current estimates of
    Highway Trust Fund revenues.
        The Administration's proposal has also built in new
    opportunities for tribes to access Federal funding beyond the
    IRR program, including training and technical assistance.
    Tribes must be involved at all stages of the transportation
    planning process.
        Our proposed planning capability initiative should
    facilitate this involvement. One of its objectives is to
    enhance tribal capacity to conduct joint transportation
    planning. Increased tribal participation in metropolitan and
    statewide planning for the Federal-Aid Program can lead to
    leveraging funds between tribes and States on projects of
    mutual benefit.
        As you are aware, safety is a major problem on IRR roads
    the fatality rate on Indian reservation roads is four times
    higher than the national average. Secretary Mineta made
    improving safety and reducing highway fatalities the focus of
    the Department's reauthorization proposal, and overall funding
    for highway safety would more than double under SAFETEA.
    Included would be a new dedicated safety funding category under
    the Federal Lands Highway Program, funded at $40 million per
    year with 15 percent of the funds allocated to BIA for Indian
    Reservation Roads. The funds would be in addition to the 402
    program funds which are also available.
        A proposed new core Federal-aid program, the Highway Safety
    Improvement Program, can be especially important for increasing
    the State focus on tribal transportation facilities. The new
    program calls for State strategic goals that address all
    roadways in the State and focus on the areas of greatest need.
    To take full advantage of the funding flexibilities in this new
    program, a State would have to develop, through a collaborative
    process, a data-based strategic highway safety plan. In States
    with extensive Indian lands, and high crash statistics on
    Indian Reservation Roads, tribes or their representatives would
    be considered major stakeholders in developing the plan.
        SAFETEA also proposes a major consolidation of highway
    safety grant programs, including incentives for safety belt use
    and prevention of impaired driving. BIA would be eligible for
    grants. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will
    continue partnering with the Indian Health Service to develop
    culturally specific programs to address impaired drivers and
    occupant protection, and to expand tribal participation in
    upcoming safety belt and impaired driving initiatives.
        In conclusion, while the Administration has concerns about
    certain aspects of these two bills, primarily related to our
    responsibility for stewardship of highway trust fund dollars,
    we support many of the provisions and have similar proposals in
    SAFETEA.
        I would like to work with this Committee, our tribal
    partners, and the BIA on ways to better meet tribal
    transportation needs.
        Mr. Chairman, again thank you for the opportunity to
    testify. I would be happy to answer questions you or other
    members may have. I would ask that my prepared statement be
    inserted in the record in its entirety.
        The Chairman. Without objection, so ordered.
        [Prepared statement of Mr. Hamilton appears in appendix.]
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Mr. Virden.

    STATEMENT OF TERRY VIRDEN, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS,
      DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, DC, ACCOMPANIED BY
             LEROY GISHI, CHIEF, DIVISION OF TRANSPORTATION

        Mr. Virden. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am
    pleased to be with you today to provide the Department's views
    on S. 281 and S. 725.
        Since enactment of TEA-21, the Federal investment in the
    BIAs' Indian Reservation Roads [IRR] Program has exceeded $1.6
    billion. This has allowed us to improve over 900 miles of road
    and replace or rehabilitate 76 bridges, during this period.
        Despite these efforts, as has been mentioned previously,
    there is still a great need for improving the transportation
    system in Indian country. Improved transportation systems are
    vital to improving public safety and increasing economic
    opportunities in Indian and Alaska Native communities.
        The Department supports the objectives of S. 281 to improve
    roads on Indian reservations, but we do have some concerns
    regarding certain provisions. We would like to work with the
    committee in suggesting some clarifications in the bill.
        We strongly support the provision eliminating the impact of
    the obligation limitation. The Administration's bill, SAFETEA,
    would provide obligation authority equal to contract authority
    so that IRR funds authorized can be obligated. Under TEA-21,
    the Indian Reservation Roads Program received a proportional
    reduction of obligation limitations for new funds using the
    same ratio as that applied to States, resulting in a partial
    loss of authorized funds. Enactment of this provision would
    make available as much as an 11-percent increase in
    transportation-related services to Indian country.
        We support the efforts to increase tribal involvement in
    the transportation programs, but have some concerns with the
    language authorizing the demonstration project.
        First, the legislative language does not explicitly state
    that the Department of Transportation is eligible to contract
    with tribes pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination and
    Education Assistance Act, Public Law 93-638. This is necessary
    for the successful implementation of this provision.
        Second, the demonstration project does not clarify which
    agency would be the owner agency. Currently, the BIA is the
    facility owner and responsible agency for approximately 25,000
    miles of the 60,000 miles in the Indian Reservation Roads
    system. If the committee moves forward with these provisions,
    we ask that you clarify which agency would be responsible for
    health and safety, and liability for any roads, bridges, or
    other related projects built under this project.
        As proposed, this bill would change the law to cap the BIA
    to no more than 6 percent for administration and oversight of
    both non-project-related and project-related management and
    oversight. This would have the effect of drastically reducing
    resources available for direct service tribes.
        Under the current law, the BIA has the responsibility for
    oversight of the entire IRR program as well as certain specific
    responsibilities regarding individual road projects. The BIA
    has consistently used less than the 6 percent allowed to
    perform non-contractible, non-project-related functions, such
    as budget formulation, review of legislative proposals, and
    processing transportation improvement programs [TIP's] for the
    submission to Federal Highways Administration, preparing annual
    funding agreements, defending contract dispute actions, and
    providing technical assistance to tribes. This also includes
    project-related administration oversight for health and safety
    for direct service Public Law 93-638 tribes that depend on the
    BIA for road projects.
        Non-project-related work includes non-contractible
    activities such as the final inspection of completed road
    projects, processing payments to contracting tribes, reviewing
    environmental, archeological, and historic preservation
    activities relating to contracted road projects; processing
    rights-of-way acquisitions, preparation for road construction,
    reviewing plans, specifications and estimates, and conducting
    engineering and design activities where applicable.
        In fiscal year 1999, the BIA obligated $43 million for
    project-related functions for all tribes. Of this amount, 75
    percent was obligated for direct-service tribes for engineering
    design, environmental compliance, historic preservation
    compliance, acquisition of rights-of-way, and assuring
    compliance with construction standards as required by title 23.
    Of the 887 Indian Reservation Roads projects requiring
    engineering design, 660, or approximately 75 percent, were
    designed by the BIA on behalf of direct service tribes.
        The proposed changes in the law in S. 281 would require the
    BIA to perform a similar number of engineering and design
    projects for direct service tribes with drastically reduced
    funding. The proposed change is not necessary because the BIA
    uses the 6 percent program management funds in a manner that
    ensures that all of the BIA's inherent Federal functions are
    completed, and that direct service tribes are serviced from
    their project funds.
        Thus, it is only appropriate for the BIA to use project
    funds for oversight of Self-Determination Tribal Indian
    Reservation Road projects and to carryout BIA's
    responsibilities. As the General Accounting Office noted in its
    letter to this committee dated August 14, 2000, the BIA uses
    the funds consistent with the law and, in fact, the BIA, over
    the last 3 years, has responsibly limited the amount of funding
    for non-project program management to an amount less than the 6
    percent.
        Currently the BIA reviews and approves plans,
    specifications, and estimates for Indian Reservation Roads
    projects to ensure that construction of the projects will not
    jeopardize health and safety. This is not uncommon in road
    construction for several reasons.
        First, title 23 requires that approved plans and
    specifications are necessary before any project authority may
    proceed to construction. The facility owner has the
    responsibility to approve plans and specifications for the
    projects within its jurisdiction.
        The concern of the BIA has been that approval authority for
    the 37,000 miles of roads and bridges that are not the
    responsibility of the Secretary should be coordinated with
    those respective facility owners--county, State, or other local
    governments.
        In the last year the BIA has worked with tribes on
    individual contracts and agreements to provide tribal approval
    of plans, specifications, and estimates [PS&ES] on BIA roads.
    The BIA believes that this provision is unnecessary as changes
    within the soon-to-be-published final Indian Reservation Roads
    regulations will help clarify the tribes' roles, and provide
    tribes under Public Law 93-638 contracts and agreements the
    ability to approve PS&Es.
        We support tribal eligibility for seat belt safety and
    intoxicated driver safety programs as proposed in the
    Administration's bill. SAFETEA calls for the consolidation of
    these programs under the National Highway Traffic Safety
    Administration's Section 402 program. The BIA will work with
    this committee and the Secretary of Transportation on
    implementing any such provisions that support the success of
    these safety-related measures.
        S. 281 establishes the Native American Commercial Driving,
    Training, and Technical Assistance Program for tribal colleges.
    The intent of this program is to encourage economic
    opportunities for tribal members.
        In addition, this training program would be conducted by
    tribal colleges and universities and provide them with value-
    added educational programs for their students. We support
    additional training programs for Native Americans.
        We have some of the same concerns for the demonstration
    projects in S. 725 as I mentioned in S. 281. S. 725 creates a
    tribal-specific transportation safety grant program that
    emphasizes intoxicated driver safety, the promotion of
    increased seat belt use, and the elimination of hazardous
    locations. The new program established under S. 725 would
    supplement existing safety grant programs in the Indian Highway
    Safety Program under section. 402 of Title 23.
        S. 725 establishes an Indian reservation rural transit
    program designed to provide competitive grants to Indian tribes
    to establish rural transit programs on reservations or other
    land under the jurisdiction of the tribes.
        The Department supports the development of rural transit
    programs in Indian and Alaska Native communities. However, we
    feel the provisions in SAFETEA better address tribal needs in
    the current economic environment.
        With that, I thank you for allowing me to testify today on
    behalf of the Department. I would ask that my prepared
    statement be inserted in the record in its entirety.
        The Chairman. Without objection, so ordered.
        [Prepared statement of Mr. Virden appears in appendix.]
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        I have several questions. I am sure Senator Johnson has
    questions, too.
        I was disappointed to note the Administration's proposal,
    SAFETEA, that the incentive grants in the areas of seat belts
    and intoxicated drivers are being combined in the National
    Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
        Mr. Hamilton, why is the BIA is the only eligible grantee
    for this funding and Indian tribes are not available for direct
    funding?
        Mr. Hamilton. I do not have that information with me today,
    Senator. I would like to provide an answer to you for the
    record.
        The Chairman. I wish you would. We give direct funding to
    the States and to many other agencies within State governments.
    I do not know why the tribes should not be eligible for direct
    funding.
        If you would give us that information, I would appreciate
    it.
        Mr. Hamilton. Certainly.
        [Material to be supplied follows:]

        The current State highway safety grants process under the
    Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) is
    complex and time-consuming, consisting of eight programs with
    varying qualification and administrative requirements.
    Therefore, the Administration has proposed restructuring and
    consolidating the highway safety grant programs. The new
    approach simplifies grant administration by first, reducing the
    number of grant programs, and second, streamlining the process
    to administer and to qualify for grant funds. All TEA-21
    highway safety grant resources, including section 157 (``Safety
    incentive grants for use of seat belts'') and section 163
    (``Safety incentives to prevent operation of motor vehicles by
    intoxicated drivers'') grant programs would be consolidated
    within the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
    (NHTSA). States predominantly have used these flexible funds
    for highway safety purposes. Moving these funds into the NHTSA
    account will streamline grant management.
        Section 402(i) of Title 23, United States Code, designates
    the Secretary of the Interior as the coordinating entity for
    the purpose of application of the highway safety program for
    Indian tribes. The Secretary of the Interior has delegated this
    authority to the Bureau of Indian Affairs [BIA] to administer
    the federally funded highway safety program on behalf of the
    tribes. Indian tribes are eligible to apply for grants in the
    highway safety program through application to the BIA, just as
    local governmental entities participate through their State
    Highway Safety Offices. This process has served the program
    well, as the BIA contracts with individual Indian tribes
    meeting specific criteria. The BIA serves in the capacity of a
    govenor's highway safety representative in managing, providing
    technical assistance, and monitoring the section 402 highway
    safety program. Under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and
    Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2003 [SAFETEA], the BIA
    would administer the consolidated highway safety grants as they
    have grants under TEA-21 and other previous authorizations.

        The Chairman. How does a tribal road-building company, or
    an engineering firm, or a surveying firm, get into the
    procurement list to be considered for road building contracts?
        Mr. Hamilton. Under the Federal Lands Highways Program, we
    procure design services and construction services. We basically
    solicit through the bidding process, using the low bidding
    process. We open the door for any company within the area that
    the project is located.
        The Chairman. One of the problems that I think we have had
    with contracting and getting into the bidding process with
    tribally-owned firms is a lot of times they do not know they
    are eligible, or they do not know the exact process of how to
    get in. Do you have a system in place to notify them, educate
    them, and help them?
        Mr. Hamilton. Yes; we do. I was not aware that there had
    been some concerns. We do have a system in place where we can
    work through the Tribal Transportation Assistance [TTAP]
    centers to help provide that information to the tribes.
        The Chairman. Your testimony mentions that the
    demonstration project in S. 281 would duplicate DOT technical
    assistance programs. Mr. Virden also mentioned something about
    the demonstration project also.
        Do you know how many Native Americans are trained through
    the DOT program? Is any of the training located on tribal
    lands?
        Mr. Virden, maybe you might know the answer to that.
        Mr. Virden. Yes; please bear with me for 1 minute. There is
    one tribal college participating. That would be the United
    Tribes Technical College in Bismarck, ND. As far as the number
    of students that are currently in the program, I do not know.
    We can provide that at a later date.
        The Chairman. What kind of training do they go through at
    United Tribes; do you know?
        Mr. Virden. It is training for certification for commercial
    driving.
        The Chairman. The American Trucking Association tells me
    that normally they are short about 300,000 drivers every year.
    I would think that that program needs to be expanded
    considerably. In fact, I had a bill in to do something like
    that, giving the Department of Labor grants to schools that
    would start driver training programs. It did not go anywhere
    last year, but it is now part of S. 281. You might want to look
    at the bill. I think it is a bill that could be of great help.
        Mr. Hamilton, does the Administration's proposal have any
    programs in which tribes have direct access to Federal funding,
    like the States do?
        Mr. Hamilton. No; we do not, Senator. We do not have any
    programs right now that have direct funding to the tribes.
        The Chairman. Why is that?
        Mr. Hamilton. Normally, title 23 requires that the funds
    either be sent through the State Department of Transportation
    or, within the Federal Highway Program, the funds are allocated
    to the BIA.
        The Chairman. Mr. Virden, as I understand it, about 6
    percent of IRR funding is used for administrative expenses. In
    some areas that is considered high. Also, as I understand it, 6
    percent is set statutorily. Could you explain why the
    administrative expenses are over 6 percent?
        Mr. Virden. Historically, as I mentioned, in the last three
    years we have stayed under that 6 percent.
        The Chairman. Your information is different than mine.
        Mr. Virden. There are some legitimate costs for
    administration which really should not be tied to projects.
    They are not related. Examples of some of these expenditures
    are as follows: These figures are from last year, the Tribal
    Transportation Assistance Centers, $980,000; Council of Tribal
    Advisors for the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial; inspection of
    the BIA bridges; regulatory negotiations with tribes; and
    supporting the National Tourism Conference for Native
    Americans.
        The Chairman. All right.
        In 1998 I had an amendment to TEA-21 that made it clear
    that all funds--not some funds--are available to Indian tribes
    for contracting under the Indian Self-Determination Act. Do you
    know how many contracts are in existence? Which tribes have
    those contracts for highway construction?
        Mr. Virden. I do not know how many exactly. I do have Mr.
    Leroy Gishi, my Division Chief for the Division of
    Transportation with me today. He may have that figure.
        The Chairman. Please come up to the table, Mr. Gishi, and
    give the committee those numbers, if you have them.
        Mr. Gishi. Mr. Chairman, just to clarify, the amount of
    funds associated with the IRR programs in the past,
    consistently over the last three to 4 years, has been about 45
    to 47 percent for self-determination contracts or self-
    governance agreements. I say the amount of funding, because the
    bulk of contracting or compacting tribes does not represent 47
    percent of those tribes. There are a number of them that have a
    significant amount of program dollars based on the formula that
    is initiated and that is based on the need.
        If you look at it from that standpoint, that represents
    anywhere from about 50 to 70 tribes that are contracting work
    under the new self-determination act.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        I have one last question before I ask Senator Johnson for
    his questions.
        I understand the Bureau keeps a list of road consultants
    who are pre-qualified and get most of the contracts to build
    the roads in Indian country. Of the list of pre-qualified
    people, are any of them Indian-owned firms?
        Mr. Gishi. Yes; as a matter of fact, the primary procedure
    in the procurement and the contracting process that the BIA
    uses in the Indian Reservation Roads Program is to, first of
    all, provide the right of first-refusal to tribes to give them
    the opportunity to contract the work if, in fact, that is what
    they want to do. Some do portions of it. Some just do the
    construction. Some do the design or the historic preservation
    portions.
        After that, we follow the Buy-Indian Act. We advertise and
    seek competition among Indian contractors. If there are no
    Indian contractors available, then we advertise in the open
    market for all contractors.
        The Chairman. Very good. Thank you for your testimony. I
    have no further questions.
        Senator Johnson, do you have any questions?
        Senator Johnson. Just briefly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you to the panel.
        Much of my concern, frankly, is going to come down simply
    to the overall level of funding and the allocations involved
    here. Clearly, as I think Senator Bingaman very ably noted, the
    amount of funding available for roads in Indian country is far
    less than what the miles suggest ought to be case. We need to
    address that.
        I am particularly distressed of an actual decline in
    funding available for the IRR program this year. This is an
    utterly unacceptable circumstance.
        Let me ask Mr. Hamilton. One of the issues--and Chairman
    Campbell has touched on this as well--that does not get a lot
    of attention because it is so unique to Indian country, is the
    whole question of the tribe's preference of working directly
    with the Federal Government rather than to have to go to their
    respective States for highway funds, whether it be maintenance,
    safety, scenic byway, transit funding, and so on.
        The tribes, as they remind me on a regular basis--and
    rightfully so--are sovereign entities. The tribes are not
    administrative subunits of States at all. My legislation does
    address that issue. I would hope that you would work with us to
    see that we can perfect a better mechanism to implement that.
    This is a matter of great practical and philosophical import to
    our sovereign tribes. It is long overdue that we finally
    correct this and quit treating them as though they were a
    county, or some sort of administrative subset. They are not. We
    need to work with you to see if we can correct that.
        Mr. Hamilton. We would be happy to work with you, Senator.
    Right now, title 23 and other program legislation requires that
    funds this be sent through the State Highway Departments. We
    work jointly with BIA to administer the Federal Lands program.
    But otherwise we have no choice, because of title 23, other
    than to work directly with State DOTs.
        Senator Johnson. We need to address that. I am hopeful that
    as we put together legislation, we can do that. The
    circumstances of the tribes are widely varying in their size
    and their ability to work with the Federal Government and with
    the States. But the relationships between the tribes and the
    States is highly variable as well. In some places it is fairly
    good, and in other places, it is not. In all circumstances,
    they are not entities of the State. I hope working with you and
    with the Chairman, we can finally begin to deal with the tribes
    on their proper status.
        Mr. Hamilton. One of the things that we are proud of is our
    transportation planning capacity program under SAFETEA, which
    we think will provide an opportunity for the tribes to be able
    to work a lot closer with State DOTs in the planning process,
    which is really needed. They need to be at the table during the
    Statewide planning, or the metropolitan planning process, which
    would open up more avenues of funding for the tribes.
        Senator Johnson. Cooperation and coordination is one thing.
    We are all for that. But tribes should not have to go hat-in-
    hand to the State as though it were up to the State to choose
    unilaterally about these projects. That is the only thing I
    wanted to share with you.
        Mr. Chairman, I have a conflicting obligation, as is so
    often the case. I am going to have to excuse myself. This is a
    very valuable hearing. I thank you for chairing this. I look
    forward to working very closely with you and our colleagues to
    make some very serious progress on Indian road circumstances in
    the Nation this year.
        The Chairman. We might be able to work with the EPW through
    Senators Inhofe and Jeffords to change Title 23. I think there
    is some confusion. Often people think that the Bureau is the
    tribes. It is not. If we really believe in self-determination,
    we have to give more access to the tribes to deal directly with
    the Federal Government.
        Senator Johnson. While a lot of the IRR money comes through
    the BIA, there is a lot of money that just flat out goes to the
    various States.
        The Chairman. It does not filter down.
        Senator Johnson. I think that we need to readdress that.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        We thank this panel very much for being here.
        Our next panel will be Joe Shirley, president, of the
    Navajo Nation; Chad Smith, chairman, the Cherokee Nation;
    Richard Milonovich, chairman, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla;
    James Garrigan, transportation planner, Red Lake Band of
    Chippewa Indians of Minnesota; and Loretta Bullard, executive
    director, Kawerak.
        While you are being seated, we are going to take a 5-minute
    break.
        [Recess taken.]
        The Chairman. The committee will come to order.
        As with the last panel, if you would like to submit your
    complete written testimony, it will be included in the record.
    You are welcome to abbreviate your testimony.
        We will start in the order that I mentioned your name. We
    will start with Joe Shirley, Jr., president of the Navajo
    Nation.

     STATEMENT OF JOE SHIRLEY, Jr., PRESIDENT, THE NAVAJO NATION,
    WINDOW ROCK, AZ, ACCOMPANIED BY MARK MARYBOY, CHAIRMAN, NAVAJO
    TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, THE NAVAJO
                             NATION COUNCIL

        Mr. Shirley. Thank you, Chairman Campbell. My name is Joe
    Shirley, Jr. I am president of the Navajo Nation.
        Chairman Campbell, Vice Chairman Inouye, and members of the
    committee, it is my honor to appear before you on behalf of the
    Navajo people to address your proposals to amend the Indian
    Reservation Roads Program. I am joined by Mr. Maryboy, chairman
    of the Transportation and Community Development Committee of
    the Navajo Nation Council whose recommendations are reflected
    in legislation before you.
        The issue before you today is how to build travel
    transportation systems that will enable Indian people to go
    from Third World conditions, which tend to squash human
    potential to First World conditions, which tend to make it
    easier for the best within us to become a reality.
        Transportation is essential to the basic quality of life
    and economic development of tribal communities. There are
    approximately 9,826 miles of public roads on the Navajo Nation
    which itself is about the size of West Virginia. While West
    Virginia has 18,000 miles of paved roads, the Navajo Nation has
    only 2,000 miles of paved roads; 78 percent of our roads are
    dirt. On a regular basis, businesses explore the possibility of
    locating to the Navajo Nation, but they do not once they
    realize the lack of paved roads. Bad roads in Indian country
    not only mean the difference between poverty and prosperity,
    but they also mean the difference between life and death.
        Health clinics on the Navajo Nation are few and far
    between. Tribal members, including the elderly, the children,
    and the disabled, often must travel hundreds of miles to
    receive specialized care. Dirt roads, deteriorating paved
    roads, and treacherous bridges, make their long journeys that
    much more difficult. It is no coincidence that automobile
    accidents are the number one cause of death among young
    American Indians. The annual fatality rate on Indian
    reservation roads is more than four times the national average.
        Our children's education is also threatened by dirt roads
    that become so bad that they are impassable to school buses. As
    you know, the BIA school buses alone travel over 15 million
    miles a year to transport Indian children on what is often a
    one-lane dirt road, lacking any basic safety features such as
    shoulders or guard rails.
        I want to read two letters from two Navajo children who
    attend the Pine Springs Bureau of Indian Affairs Elementary
    School within the Navajo Nation in Pine Springs, AZ.
        Their words say more than I ever could about how the 12-
    mile dirt road, which is the only way to access their school,
    impacts their education.

        Dear Roads Task Committee. Hi. My name is Jonathan. I go to
    school at Pine Springs School. I want the road graded because
    some people drive slow because the road is too bumpy and rough
    because there are too much rocks sticking out of the ground.
    Please pave the road north of Pine Spring Road. Please, because
    it is bumpy, too. Please do not let the kids get hurt on the
    bus. The kids get hurt because the kids get cut on the bus.
    That is really dangerous for the kids. The milk and grocery
    truck comes up here every week. They do not like the rough
    road, too. Let our safety come first. Kids come first above
    all. We have a real nice school and we enjoy it very much.
    Jonathan Smith.

        The second letter, Mr. Chairman, reads as follows:

        Dear Roads Task Committee. Hello. My name is Marcario
    Betoney. I go to school at Pine Springs School. I hate the road
    up here because we get flat tires and the buses get broken
    down. Then the buses do not come right on time when school
    starts. When people drive really fast the rocks jump up and hit
    the windshield. Then the windshield cracks. Then they have to
    take the car and truck to the shop to get it fixed. People get
    into car crashes when they are going too fast on the bumps that
    are on the road. Sometimes we have name games. Sometimes we
    have home games over here. Parents do not like to come to the
    games because of this road. My family do not like the road
    because of the rocks and bumps. Our trucks and cars are getting
    rocks into the tires. Then it gets flat. Can you please fix the
    road for us. Please? Thank you. Marcario Betoney.

        Indian reservation roads are not an Indian problem. The
    Indian Reservation Roads Program impacts all people--tribal and
    non-tribal alike. Tribal lands provide vitally needed access
    within and between States, and support a multitude of economic
    interests, including tourism, agriculture, energy production,
    manufacturing, mineral extraction, and timber harvesting.
        Indian reservation roads represent 2.65 percent of all
    Federal lands highways, yet receive less than 1 percent of the
    Federal surface transportation budget. In fact, last year
    tribes received even less than the year before. In fiscal year
    2003, the Indian Reservation Roads Program was slashed $40
    million below the 2002 level, while States received an
    increase.
        I respectfully urge this committee to ensure that equity
    actually means something in the reauthorization of the
    Transportation Equity Act of the 21st century.
        Thank you. I would ask that my prepared statement be
    inserted in the record in its entirety.
        The Chairman. Without objection, so ordered.
        [Prepared statements of Mr. Shirley and Mr. Maryboy appear
    in appendix.]
        Mr. Shirley. Attached to my written testimony, Chairman
    Campbell and members of the committee, are some photos for your
    perusal. It is very typical of what roads are like on Navajo
    land.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Mr. Shirley. Chairman Campbell, can you give my council
    delegate, Mark Maryboy, some time? Maybe you can just make his
    written testimony part of the record.
        The Chairman. His testimony is included with yours and has
    been made a part of the record.
        As you know, I live down in the Four Corners area near you.
    I travel on some of those roads myself when I go see friends
    and cross the Navajo Reservation. I know what most people on
    the committee do not know is that during the winter time that
    some of your roads are impassable. The difficulty is that
    people who have to leave their cars on a paved road miles and
    miles away from where they live. In fact, sometimes the winters
    get so bad we have had to provide air drops of food for
    children because people cannot get into the community to be
    able to get food. I am very aware of that.
        I was looking at the pictures you provided for the
    committee. This one looks like the bottom of a bridge with
    rotting planking. Are these structures old oil drilling pipes
    that are holding that bridge up?
        Mr. Shirley. I think those are metal pipes. They are all
    rusted and corroded. It is very dangerous.
        The Chairman. It also looks to be.
        We also have written testimony by Mr. Maryboy.
        Mark, years ago were you a county commissioner in Utah?
         Mr. Maryboy. Yes.
        The Chairman. That was you. I met you years ago. I just
    have not seen you for a long time. I am glad you are still
    active in public policy with the tribe. You did a fine job as a
    county commissioner, too, by the way.
        Mr. Maryboy. Thank you.
        I have served as a county commissioner for the last 16
    years. I retired last year. I remember you and I were riding
    broncos in Dorado, CO.
        The Chairman. That is right. We were both chasing the
    horses. That has been a long time ago. I am glad to see you
    here. I am glad you have been active all these years.
    [Laughter.]
        We will now go to Chairman Smith.

       STATEMENT OF HON. CHADWICK SMITH, CHAIRMAN, THE CHEROKEE
       NATION, TAHLEQUAH, OK, ACCOMPANIED BY JACKIE BOB MARTIN,
    CHAIRMAN, RESOURCES COMMITTEE, CHEROKEE NATION TRIBAL COUNCIL,
     AND HARLEY BUZZARD, DIRECTOR OF ROADS, CHEROKEE NATION TRIBAL
                                COUNCIL

        Mr. Smith. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
    committee. My name is Chad Smith. I am the principal chief of
    the Cherokee Nation. Joining me are Jackie Bob Martin, chairman
    of the Resources Committee of the Cherokee Nation Tribal
    Council; and Harley Buzzard, director of our Roads Program.
        I testify today in strong support of the tribally-developed
    transportation program improvements reflected in the bill
    before this committee, not only for the Cherokee Nation but
    also for the 500,000 tribal citizens of the Cherokee, Seminole
    Creek, Choctaw, and Chickasaw Nations.
        I am pleased to see the common sense ideas, innovative
    proposals, and the increased funding in your bill, Mr.
    Chairman, as well as those in Senator Bingaman's bill, and in
    Senator Johnson's bill.
        My brief remarks will focus on four issues I believe are
    critical to any tribal transportation reauthorization bill:
    Economic development, safety, funding equity, and program
    efficiency. The Cherokee Nation has more than 237,000 tribal
    citizens, nearly one-half of whom live within our 7,0900 square
    mile jurisdictional area, which is basically Northeastern
    Oklahoma.
        According to the 2000 Census, our jurisdictional area is
    home to 462,000 American citizens who benefit from the jobs,
    infrastructure improvements, and business opportunities that
    the Cherokee Nation brings to Northeastern Oklahoma. It is very
    clear that roads benefit Indians and non-Indians alike.
        The 2000 Census Report indicates that 13 percent of the
    families and 16 percent of the individuals live below the
    poverty line in our area. This reauthorization provides
    Congress an unique opportunity to jump-start the economy in
    Eastern Oklahoma. I have seen the economic health, safety, and
    societal benefits that come when our transportation systems are
    improved and our infrastructures properly maintained.
        As you know, every dollar invested in transportation
    infrastructure yields a sixfold increase in the Nation's
    economy, generating many new and desperately needed jobs. This
    investment is especially important for the tribes. By making a
    modest financial investment and other common sense improvements
    to Federal transportation laws, Congress can help tribes turn
    areas that are too often pockets of poverty into engines of
    economic growth.
        We applaud the Administration's reauthorization proposal
    which focuses on transportation safety and security. We also
    support your proposal, Mr. Chairman, and Senator Bingaman's,
    and Senator Johnson's, to provide tribes with direct access to
    Federal transportation safety funds. The statistics on traffic
    injuries and fatalities on tribal roadways are truly appalling.
        This committee's own report in 2000 concluded that the
    unsafe conditions on many IRR roads and bridges have led to an
    annual fatality rate on the IRR system of more than four times
    that of the national average. While statistics are important to
    make a point, they cannot adequately capture the grief of a
    Cherokee citizen who lost a loved one in a preventable traffic
    accident a few years ago. Gerald Blackbear, a full blood
    Cherokee, lost his life in a car crash on the Fairview/Eucha
    Bridge in the northern part of the Cherokee Nation.
        This bridge is situated on a roadway which provides access
    to health clinics, shopping, and employment, and is also a bus
    route for the local school. I have a photograph of that actual
    bridge. I would ask permission to pass this picture to the
    committee.
        The Chairman. Please do.
        Mr. Smith. Here is the original one-lane bridge with no
    guard rails and no safety to it. He drove off in the rain. It
    was several hours before his body was recovered. You see to the
    right of that photograph a bridge that has now been completed
    under the IRR program. This shows you the success and the
    critical need for this endeavor.
        With the committee's permission, I will circulate these.
        The bridge was a small one-lane roadway that had dangerous
    turns and no guard rails. While the Nation has received funding
    since to replace the bridge, it was soon enough to prevent the
    unnecessary death of Gerald Blackbear. We can and must do
    better.
        Mr. Chairman, we all realize the budget restraints facing
    Congress, but the Indian Reservation Roads Program has been
    under-funded for far too long. Tribes need and deserve funding
    equity. Two statistics prove my point. I believe the committee
    is well aware of these.
        Although the IRR system comprises 2.63 percent of the
    Federal aid system, it receives less than 1 percent of the
    surface highway funding out of the National Highway Trust Fund.
    According to the BIA and transportation experts, the current
    IRR construction backlog is between $11 and $25 billion.
        The Cherokee Nation faces similar challenges in budgeting
    scarce resources but we have determined roads and
    infrastructure to be a high priority when allocating
    substantial tribal funds to supplement our IRR allocation.
        Of course, Congress should increase the funding for IRR and
    reinstate the program's exemption from the obligation
    limitation deduction. For States, the obligation limitation is
    a temporary delay in full funding. But for tribes, obligation
    limitation is a permanent loss which removes $35 million
    annually. That is about 13 percent of the IRR Federal budget
    loss.
        Restoring the exemption from the obligation limitation is a
    no-cost way of increasing annual funding to the IRR program.
    Unlike the States who ultimately get the obligation limitation
    back, the tribes obligation limitation is basically forfeited.
    In the alternative, we would request the obligation limitation
    funds to be directed back to the tribes and not to the State.
        In terms of program efficiency, when the Federal aid
    highway system was developed in the mid-1950's, Federal Indian
    policy supported termination of the trust responsibility and
    elimination of Federal recognition for tribal governments.
    During that period, Federal transportation laws enabled money,
    intended for the tribal transportation systems, to be funneled
    to the State and BIA.
        While the termination era has long since passed, the
    funding mechanism for tribal transportation systems remains the
    same. The result is an inefficient program that cost Federal,
    State, and tribal officials countless hours and many millions
    of dollars in needless transaction costs. Moreover, this
    funding structure does not support tribal self-determination or
    self-governance.
        I would have disagree with my colleague, Mr. Virden, about
    the 6 percent BIA Administration set-aside, we believe it is
    unnecessary for self-governance tribes. For example, when we
    design a road, we have a professional engineer design that
    road. He stamps the plans. Those plans are submitted to a
    second professional engineer under our guidelines who approves
    those plans. Then, under the current system, those plans are
    again submitted to the BIA who have their own professional
    engineer to stamp those plans a third time.
        Under the demonstration program with the Red Lake Band of
    Chippewa Indians have demonstrated that that is unnecessary
    duplicity of bureaucracy. The professional engineers'
    reputation in that disciple provides insurance of quality work.
        As one of the first tribes in the country to bring self-
    governance principles to the IRR program, we have seen first
    hand the positive benefits that can be brought to our people in
    our communities. We recognize that funding is limited, and
    request that we be given the tools to maximize those limited
    resources.
        Simply, elimination of the exemption for the tribes'
    obligation limitation and elimination of the BIA
    Administration's 6 percent cost, would mean 20 percent more
    funding for actual construction of roads. We are hopeful that
    you and members of this committee will work closely with
    Senator Inhofe to develop a tribal transportation
    reauthorization bill that has the broadest support of all
    possible tribal governments.
        Finally, Mr. Chairman, when you introduced your bill in
    2000, you stated for Indian communities an efficient Federal
    roads financing construction system holds the key to healthier
    economies and higher standards of living for their members. I
    could not agree with you more. I urge the committee to adopt
    your proposals as well as those of Senator Johnson and Senator
    Bingaman.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, for
    the opportunity to testify in strong support of this important
    legislation. I would be happy to answer any of your questions.
    I would ask that my prepared statement be inserted in the
    record in its entirety.
        The Chairman. Without objection, so ordered.
        [Prepared statement of Mr. Smith appears in appendix.]
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        We will now move to Chairman Milonovich.
        Before you start, Richard, I would like to tell you that
    Senator Allen and I really enjoyed our visit with you last week
    in your home lands. He still talks about the terrific
    interaction you have with the local community and county
    government. He has told me several times he wants to come back
    and go for a horseback ride up in that beautiful canyon you
    showed up with that tribal park. You can look forward to both
    of us coming back when we have the time.
        You can go ahead and proceed.

     STATEMENT OF RICHARD MILONOVICH, CHAIRMAN, AGUA CALIENTE BAND
                     OF CAHUILLA, PALM SPRINGS, CA

        Mr. Milonovich. Thank you, sir. I appreciate that.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to share our
    views with you that highlight the solutions to the
    transportation challenges that are faced by Indian tribes and
    the members of the Agua Caliente Band Indians on a reservation
    headed in Palm Springs, CA.
        Our transportation issues and challenges, however, are
    largely a result of our existing checkerboard land ownership
    patterns in the growth of these communities around our
    reservation. Today my testimony will address three subjects:
        First, our innovative proposal for tribal road bonding;
    second, the current Indian Reservation Road Program, including
    proposed modifications of that program; and, third, specific
    road projects that we are working on independently and within
    the city of Palm Springs.
        First, we have put forward an innovative financing proposal
    for tribal roads. our tribal roads bonding proposal supplements
    the current IRR program. It draws on the growing financial
    sophistication and where-with-all of many tribes. Our proposal
    works like this.
        When a tribe or tribes cooperatively, wish to build a road
    to service their reservation, the design and plans for the road
    are developed. The road is included on the tribal
    transportation plan, or any other existing transportation plan.
    The tribe takes that design and plan to the Department of
    Transportation who check to see that all is in order with the
    design, and that costs are in line. We can, but are not
    required, to make a tribal contribution toward the project. If
    we contribute, however, 25 percent of the project costs, then
    the tribe's project is eligible for one-half of the money
    available under the bonding program.
        When DOT approves the project, it issues a commitment to
    pay the remaining costs of the project over a period of years.
    The tribe takes the commitment and then issues a bond to cover
    the cost of the project. From the proceeds of the bond it
    builds the project in that year rather than waiting.
        Then each year the tribe gets payment from the Department
    of Transportation and, in turn, pays the bondholder. The money
    comes from the Highway Trust Fund. Our idea is patterned after
    the existing DOT program that allow States to use some of their
    regularly flowing highway dollar revenues from their annual
    allotment to pay for road bonds. This style of financing for
    roads is how all long-term assets should be financed,
    especially roads.
        The second topic I will cover today is the existing
    Reservation Roads Program. It is a good program, and I am glad
    that the BIA, after 7 years, finally has a package of
    regulations for the program. I am also glad that there are some
    modifications, including increased funding, that have been
    proposed legislatively. We support these modifications.
        Under this program, our tribe has received approximately
    $90,000 for road planning activities during the last 3 years.
    The current funding level does not address the needs of small
    tribes, particularly those in California. That is why we are
    proposing an innovative finance bonding program. That is why we
    support the modifications to the current IRR program.
        I have the following recommendations regarding the existing
    IRR program. At the very least, the BIA IRR formula should
    reflect the $100,000 base funding per tribe right off the top
    takedown. The base funding is needed to meet the minimum
    planning for intermodal transportation.
        California tribes should receive a minimum of 9.2 percent
    of the BIA IRR funds, which is the minimum guaranteed rate that
    California receives from the Federal Highway Trust Fund. My
    point is that we have received plenty of money for the current
    program, but we have not received road money. We have needed to
    self-finance important road projects.
        My third topic is to discuss our current transportation
    priorities. As one of the few tribes in the United States who
    inhabit a large urban area, our transportation needs are
    somewhat different than those of most tribes. Agua Caliente has
    developed a list of transportation requests that not only
    benefit tribal members, but also our neighbors within the
    Coachella Valley.
        We have three cities as well as the county of Riverside
    which are located on or near our reservation. We are now
    seeking Federal funds for three priority projects: First, road
    and bridge improvements to South Palm Canyon Drive and the
    Indian Canyons access road; second, replacement of the Indian
    Canyon/Interstate 10 interchange; and, third, construction of
    the Mid-Valley Intermodal Transportation Center.
        South Palm Canyon Drive is the only road into the Indian
    Canyons Nature Preserve and Agua Caliente Cultural Museum site.
    It also provides access to numerous residential developments,
    businesses, and the Agua Caliente Tribal Government Building.
        The tribe has requested $7.2 million in Federal funding to
    complete improvements on South Palm Canyon Drive. The funding
    will complete realignment and pavement of existing roads,
    replacing inadequate bridge structure over the Arenas South
    Drainage Channel, and construct an intermodal transportation
    center providing additional access to Indian Canyons Cultural
    site and the Agua Caliente Museum.
        Currently 90,000 vehicles per day travel I-10 through the
    Indian Canyon Interchange, while some 19,000 vehicles per day
    travel this section of Indian Canyon Drive. The Agua Caliente,
    in partnership with the city of Palm Springs, has identified
    the Indian Avenue interchange as a top priority for the highway
    bill reauthorization. We have requested $15.3 million to
    replace the existing two-lane I-10 Indian Canyon Drive
    interchange constructed in 1956 with a six-lane interchange and
    accompanying access ramps and service roads.
        Enhancing existing roads and building new roads is only one
    part of the long-term program solution to our traffic issues.
    We must also improve access to mass transit. Currently, very
    few people arrive in the Coachella Valley by rail. The only
    passenger rail service provided to the Palm Springs area is one
    daily, late-night stop by Amoral.
        The Agua Caliente and other governmental organizations in
    the Coachella Valley have long desired a passenger rail service
    connection to Los Angeles. To bring passenger rail service to
    the Coachella Valley, we must have the infrastructure in place
    to support the service.
        Knowing that the highway bill reauthorization will
    emphasize enhancement of intermodal centers, we have requested
    $4.2 million to construct the Mid-Valley intermodal Center. The
    funds will allow for construction of a terminal building
    parking structure, a park-and-ride facilities, 500-foot double
    track passenger platforms, and pedestrian under-crossing for
    enhanced passenger safety and convenience.
        The Agua Caliente are serious about the opportunity for a
    Mid-Valley intermodal station and have supported the Coachella
    Valley Association of Governments, which includes nine cities,
    two tribes, and the county, and have purchased 11 acres of
    land, at a substantial cost, where the rail station and park-
    and-ride facility will be located.
        To sum up, we are requesting the committee's assistance
    with all three of the issues presented today. We appreciate the
    time and the attention of the committee to these important
    issues. We ask that you address these issues in the
    reauthorization of the highway bill.
        Thank you. I would ask that my prepared statement be
    inserted in the record in its entirety.
        We welcome you back again as soon as you can get there.
        The Chairman. Without objection, so ordered.
        [Prepared statement of Mr. Milonovich appears in appendix.]
        The Chairman. Thank you very much.
        I will have some questions for you in 1 minute.
        Senator Murkowski, did you have an opening statement?
        Senator Murkowski. No, Mr. Chairman; I would rather just
    listen to the witnesses.
        The Chairman. Okay.
        We will now move to Mr. Garrigan. Please go ahead and
    proceed.

     STATEMENT OF JAMES GARRIGAN, TRANSPORTATION PLANNER, RED LAKE
          BAND OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS OF MINNESOTA, RED LAKE, MN

        Mr. Garrigan. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and members of
    this Committee. My name is James Garrigan, Transportation
    Planner, for the Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians.
        On behalf of our chairman, William G. King, and the tribal
    council, I thank you and other distinguished members of this
    committee for the opportunity to provide testimony concerning
    proposed amendments to the Indian Reservation Roads Program, as
    contemplated under S. 281 and S. 725. Although only recently
    introduced and referred to the committee, I would like to take
    this opportunity to provide the committee with some initial
    feedback on S. 1122 as well.
        Before I comment on the subject bills, I would like to
    provide the committee for the record a brief synopsis of the
    recently completed TEA-21 negotiated rulemaking process for the
    IRR program. While I appreciate the opportunity to represent
    the tribal caucus as a tribal cochair on the Federal Tribal
    Negotiating Rulemaking Committee, I was disappointed with what
    I, along with the majority of the tribe representatives on the
    committee, viewed as a blatant disregard for Congressional
    intent by the Federal representatives on the committee.
        While the committee's tribal caucus met every challenge and
    every imposed deadline, the BIA delayed the committee process
    for months at every juncture. Because of the long delays by the
    BIA, the tribes felt that they did not have sufficient time to
    properly negotiate key items that are important to tribes. As a
    result, there are 13 major disagreement items that did not get
    properly addressed.
        Although this was supposed to be a tribally-driven process,
    it was far from it. The proposed rule was published with
    Federal language in place on the disagreement items. It appears
    that the final rule will be published likewise. Many tribal
    committee members feel that because of this, the entire
    negotiated rulemaking process was a travesty.
        The legislative reform effort by Congress 6 years ago was
    aimed at removing many obstacles that hampered tribes in the
    past and their attempt to administer the IRR program under
    self-determination or self-governance.
        Again, despite the tribal reform language that exists in
    TEA-21, we believe that it is necessary for the Congress to
    even more explicitly mandate that the Federal roads bureaucracy
    facilitate the complete transfer of all authority and
    responsibility for the administration of the IRR program to
    those tribes so requesting, and to legislatively enforce full
    tribal autonomy in the operation of the program formerly
    operated by the U.S. Government.
        Unless Congress does this by statute, certain Federal
    agencies will never appreciate, and Indian tribes will never
    realize, the true meaning of self-determination and self-
    governance.
        The Red Lake Band is in general favor of S. 281 and S. 725.
    S. 281 contains provisions which hopefully will finally achieve
    what Congress has intended for Indian tribes since the
    enactment of the Indian Self-Determination and Education
    Assistance Act of 1975.
        Passage of this bill would stop the loss of IRR program
    funding that resulted with the application of the obligation
    limitation. S. 281 would also allow tribes to deal directly
    with the Federal Highway Administration on a government-to-
    government basis.
        While the Red Lake and all Indian tribes throughout the
    country appreciate the increased funding for the IRR program
    that Congress made available under TEA-21, the program is still
    critically under-funded. The application of the obligation
    limitation requirement to these funds offset much of the
    benefit Indian tribes were to receive through the increased
    funding.
        Passage of this bill would help ensure that all funding
    allocated for the IRR program remain available for distribution
    to Indian tribes, a goal Red Lake fully endorses. The Red Lake
    Band has been a strong advocate for Indian tribes having a
    direct relationship with the Federal Highway Administration. S.
    281 would provide a vehicle to make this happen under a
    demonstration project.
        The Red Lake Band has been at the forefront in
    demonstrating that Indian tribes can deliver on programs that
    Congress has provided to further promote self-determination and
    self-governance. Red Lake was one of the first tribes in the
    Nation to assume the entire IRR program under Title IV of
    Public Law 93-638, as amended. The documented success of this
    program serves as a model for other tribes to follow.
        Red Lake will also be at the forefront in demonstrating
    that Indian tribes can independently coexist with the Federal
    Highway Administration without the involvement of the BIA. Red
    Lake also supports the safety incentive grants as proposed in
    S. 281.
        Moving on to S. 725, the Red Lake Band supports the
    provisions of this bill that increases the amount of funding
    available for the IRR. We feel that the increase in funding for
    the IRR program and removing the obligation limitation will
    provide greater opportunities for jobs on Indian reservations.
    The Red Lake Band also supports the Indian rural transit
    program provisions in this bill.
        Recently, another bill has been introduced by Senator
    Johnson and Senator Daschle, S. 1122. This bill contains
    several provisions that closely mirror those in S. 281 and S.
    725. However, in the short time between introduction of S. 1122
    and the development of this testimony, the Red Lake Band has
    not had an adequate opportunity to fully analyze and assess S.
    1122.
        Our initial impression, however, is that S. 1122 touches
    upon a variety of transportation issues that are important to
    Indian country, but requires further refinement to ensure that
    the successful gains in Indian program administrations are not
    adversely impacted unintentionally.
        The Red Lake Band would also like to take this opportunity
    to propose to the committee for consideration as part of the
    IRR program amendments a concept that we believe would help
    foster economic development in Indian country. While a number
    of Indian tribes receive IRR services either directly from the
    Federal Government, or through contracts or agreements under
    the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act
    Authority, the BIA continues to use a substantial portion of
    IRR funding to procure IRR-related services from non-tribal
    contractors located far from Indian communities.
        As a result, the full benefit of this Federal funding often
    eludes tribal communities because outside contractors deliver
    the referred benefit or product on reservation but conduct most
    of the economic activity off reservation so that little, if
    any, ancillary benefit is derived by tribal communities.
        We are proposing that Public Law 93-638 authority be
    expanded to include that if a beneficiary tribe chooses not to
    contract under the Indian Self-Determination and Education
    Assistance Act, to carryout an IRR function, and the BIA
    chooses not to provide the function through direct services,
    then an Indian tribe having the resources to perform the
    function would be eligible to contract the work under the
    Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act prior to
    the BIA offering the work to non-tribal contractors.
        We believe that this provision would enable Indian country
    to more fully benefit from Federal program funds.
        In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I was dismayed by some of the
    previous testimony I heard when the witnesses referred to the
    Federal Government as owners of the roads in Indian
    reservations. That ownership is beneficial ownership. The
    tribes actually own those roads. Tribal governments are
    governments. They are elected governments and they are public
    authorities.
        I was happy to hear Senator Johnson say that we need to
    amend title 23 to correct this. Red Lake would be happy to
    assist your staff in crafting some language to clear this up so
    we can move on.
        I would ask that my prepared statement be inserted in the
    record in its entirety.
        The Chairman. Without objection, so ordered.
        [Prepared statement of Mr. Garrigan appears in appendix.]
        The Chairman. Hopefully we might make some improvements,
    including some of your suggestions, such as allowing tribes
    that have road building expertise to contract with other
    tribes. I think that would be a constructive amendment.
        I have to tell you that I do not blame you for being
    somewhat frustrated with how long it takes to get some things
    changed within the Bureau. In TEA-21, it was my amendment that
    required the negotiated rulemaking authority. It has taken the
    Bureau over four years to even get their rules in order from
    that.
        In some cases they have two speeds over there: slow and
    stop. Those are the two to choose from.
        The danger with roads just keeps going on. Hopefully we can
    fix some of the inequities of the last TEA-21 in this bill.
        Thank you. Now we will proceed with Ms. Bullard.

    STATEMENT OF LORETTA BULLARD, PRESIDENT, KAWERAK, INCORPORATED,
                                NOME, AK

        Ms. Bullard. Thank you, Chairman Campbell and Senator
    Murkowski. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is
    Loretta Bullard and I am president of Kawerak, which is a
    regional tribal consortium in Northwest Alaska. We have 20
    federally-recognized tribes in our consortium. I also serve on
    the Alaska Federation of Natives' Board of Directors.
        Collectively, Alaska Natives own 44 million acres in the
    State of Alaska, or just about 11 percent of the State. We have
    229 widely dispersed communities across the State. We have very
    few roads. Much of our land was selected by the Native
    corporations for its economic development potential. We need
    access to those resources.
        Just to give you an idea of the size that we are dealing
    with, in our service area it is 1 hour and 10 minutes north by
    a twin engine plane, and 1 hour and 10 minutes west by plane,
    and 1 hour and 10 minutes south by plane. That is our service
    delivery area, which is about 45,000 square miles. We have very
    few roads.
        Our ground transportation system is very undeveloped in
    comparison to the rest of the United States. Most of our
    village streets are no more than unimproved dirt paths. I have
    included color photographs for the committee. We have very
    little snow removal in our communities. We use snow machines in
    between our villages during the winter time as well as small
    airplanes because there are no roads. We also use boats during
    the summer time.
        While this hearing is being held to solicit recommendations
    and comments on S. 725 and S. 281, I also want to speak to the
    NCAI draft bill and S. 1122. We wanted to express our support
    for the language contained in the NCAI draft bill that would
    change the name of the Indian Reservation Roads Program
    throughout Title 23 to the Tribal Transportation Program. We
    feel that the language better reflects the wide scope of the
    program.
        We strongly support the appropriations as outlined in S.
    1122. We support excepting the IRR program from the obligation
    limitation, and support the increased appropriation for the
    bridge program. One of the bridges in our area, just to give
    you an idea of how old it is, used to cross the Panama Canal.
    It is one of those unbolt them and move them kind of bridges.
    It used to be the Cushman Street Bridge in Fairbanks. Then when
    they replaced that bridge, they moved it to our area.
        We want to speak to the language in S. 725 that would
    require the Secretary to verify the existence of all roads that
    are part of the IRR system and to distribute funds based only
    on those roads. We oppose that language because we feel that it
    would just continue to allocate funds based on the existing
    road mileage and those areas without roads would continue to
    receive little, if any, funds.
        We support the language that would establish a minimum of
    $35,000 base per tribe for tribal transportation planning and
    bump the 2 percent planning allocation to 4 percent. Using our
    Bering Straits Region Tribes as an example, in March 2002 our
    tribes were informed that they were eligible to apply for
    $1,125 as their share of the Alaska 2 percent planning money.
    Bumping that to a 5-percent increase would bump their tribal
    transportation planning dollars to $2,812. That is enough for a
    round-trip ticket to Anchorage, plus some per diem.
        I am not going to speak to all the areas that we support. I
    have that in my written testimony, but I did want to mention
    areas that we are suggesting be changed. We are suggesting that
    section 106 of S. 1122, whereby it requires the Secretaries to
    establish a joint IRR Coordinating Committee. We suggest that
    you need to add language there that would give that Committee
    some teeth beyond being purely advisory.
        It has been really frustrating contracting with the BIA for
    the roads program for the last 5 or 6 years. It is just about
    impossible to get things done, or make changes to the system.
    It is very frustrating.
        We oppose the language contained in S. 1122, sections 202
    and 203 which directs the secretary to make competitive grants
    available to establish tribal transportation safety programs.
    We think it is a good idea, but the current language makes
    funds available only to those tribes on Indian reservations, or
    who have land under the jurisdiction of the tribe. In the NCAI
    draft bill there was language that made funds available to
    Indian tribes and tribal organizations to establish tribal
    transportation safety programs. It is not necessarily tied to
    your land base.
        In the last 5 years in our area we have had about 12 deaths
    due to tribal transportation issues. We do have some safety
    concerns that we would like to address.
        In terms of some Alaska specific issues, we want to speak
    to our inventory problems. One of the major problems with the
    existing IRR program is that the funding formula used to
    distribute funds nationally is based primarily on the inventory
    of IRR routes. For Alaska, we have never had a true inventory.
    We have been working on it for these last 2 or 3 years through
    funds that were made available through the administrative
    capacity building funds, but we are finding it extremely
    difficult to get our routes into the BIA inventory. We have
    been finding that the information that you need to submit or
    that the areas identified in the BIA manual keep being
    reinterpreted to require different data sets or information
    that needs to be included.
        We have been working very hard on this for the past 2
    years. There are 189 tribes in the State of Alaska that have
    contracted to do their inventory developments. We have been
    very limited in our ability to get that information into the
    system. We feel that needs to be addressed.
        One example of how they are changing the rules is this. The
    latest road inventory checklist purports to require that a
    tribe have an approved long-term transportation plan in effect
    before the inventory changes are made. We are still developing
    our inventory. We do not have a long-term transportation plan
    that is going to support the need to tweak the inventory.
        We are also concerned that the BIA, since 1993, has had a
    2-percent policy that limits the ability of areas to increase
    the inventory by 2 percent over any given year. Alaska has
    never had a good inventory to start with. In 1993 the villages
    in the State were asked to identify their number one project.
    That was all they were asked to identify. One-third of the
    villages did not even respond. There are about 150 villages
    that identified their single priority project. That became the
    Juneau Area Transportation Plan.
        That is not an inventory. That is not a true reflection of
    need. We encourage Congress to enact language that would direct
    the BIA to include our village streets and primary access
    roads. We have not even been able to get those into the
    inventory.
        We are also suggesting that regional tribal transportation
    authorities be developed for Alaska. It is such a huge State.
    We recognize the need to work together. We are suggesting some
    language that would create some regional transportation
    authorities under the guidance of the tribes or the regional
    corporations, as decided by people within the area.
        I want to close by saying that we do support the road
    bonding that was proposed by the Agua Caliente Band provision.
        Thank you for this opportunity to testify. I would ask that
    my prepared statement be inserted in the record in its
    entirety.
        The Chairman. Without objection, so ordered.
        [Prepared statement of Ms. Bullard appears in appendix.]
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        I have a lot of questions. I am going to submit those to
    you. If you would put answers to those and submit them to the
    committee, I would appreciate it.
        I would like to ask a few questions at this time.
        Ms. Bullard, I guess it has been about 3 years ago I went
    with Senator Stevens to Alaska to visit some villages. We went
    to some larger towns. One of the places we went to was Barrow.
    As I remember, they told us there were only 12 miles of road
    around Barrow. All the fuel and automobiles that were in town
    had to be brought in by a barge. There was no road to go
    anywhere out of Barrow. When you mentioned that a third of the
    villages did not respond to the last request you had for an
    inventory, I can see that if Barrow was considered one of the
    larger ones, some of the villages must have real problems with
    transportation. Now, in those small villages, there must be
    many of them that do not have roads to get to any outside main
    road. Is that correct or not?
        Ms. Bullard. That is correct. The majority of the
    communities in the State do not have access to roads. Nome
    probably has 300 miles of road.
        The Chairman. So they have to fly in or fly out, or go by
    snow mobile, barge, or some other way. Okay, thank you.
        President Shirley, several of the members have talked a
    little bit about bonding for roads. With the Navajo having
    almost 10,000 miles of roads, mostly unpaved and many of them
    unimproved, if you rely strictly on Federal IRR funding, it is
    going to take forever to get the job done.
        Would you be supportive of that area of tribal road
    construction bonds to leverage additional road building
    capital?
        Mr. Shirley. Yes; we would, Chairman Campbell. We are doing
    what we can right now to even at that on our own. There is
    every possibility of doing that.
        The Chairman. That would bring up another question, then.
    Those Indian communities that have access to a steady income
    stream, they are going to be better able to repay those bonds,
    to pay off the bond holders, how would you envision the Navajo
    Tribe paying off bond holders?
        Mr. Shirley. We are trying to do what we can to put some
    money aside to do just that, some of the general revenues that
    come in from coal royalties, or gas royalties, to set some of
    that aside so that when we do bonds, that we would have a
    revenue stream to pay on the bonds.
        We also have a fuel excise tax that the Nation's Council
    also put into force. We are also looking at that as a revenue
    stream to pay the bonds that we might float to do roads.
        The Chairman. To Chief Smith, and maybe to Chairman
    Milonovich, in many cases the success of the IRR program is, in
    part, due to the ability of the tribes to partner with
    respective States to build roads together. In fact, when I was
    out visiting with the Agua Caliente Band, Chairman Milonovich
    showed us one road and bridge that they were interested in
    getting some Federal help for, but I assume there is going to
    be some partner with the local communities, too.
        Chief Smith, have you attempted to work with the State of
    Oklahoma on any reservation road projects?
        Mr. Smith. Yes; we have. We have had a very innovative
    program to work with the counties and cities. We actually use
    funds that we derive from a compact with the State in the
    issuance of our own automobile tags, to provide material for
    local counties. They come back and do the labor. We have
    investigated many innovative ways to work with local
    communities and with the State of Oklahoma.
        The Chairman. With the case of Oklahoma, you have a very
    strong Indian presence in your legislature with Kelly Haney and
    a few other senior members there. I would think that you have a
    really good voice in your legislature. In many States tribes do
    not have that strong voice in their legislature.
        In the case of the Agua Caliente Band, Richard, you
    mentioned one area that is an interchange. Was that the area
    that you showed us, the bridge and the widening of that road.
    Is that the same place when we were out there.
        Mr. Milonovich. No; the other was more to north of the
    city. It is right on the interstate.
        The Chairman. Oh, I see. It is right on the interstate.
    Okay. Thank you.
        Mr. Milonovich. We are working together with the city of
    Palm Springs as well as the Coachella Valley Association of
    Governments consisting of nine cities, two tribes, and the
    county working together on transportation issues which affect
    the entire Coachella Valley. We are working quite closely with
    everyone.
        The Chairman. I know that you do that very well with your
    tribe. I am always an admirer of how well you work with local
    county and city governments.
        Mr. Garrigan, you talked somewhat about the BIA soaking up
    a lot of the funding for administrative costs. Someone, and
    perhaps it was Mr. Smith, mentioned that they do the
    engineering themselves and they have it approved by the next
    level, and it goes through two or three approvals. Then it has
    to be submitted to the Bureau for their approval. Then, of
    course, they are keeping 6 percent. Basically all they are
    doing is rubber stamping all of the work that you already did.
    Has that been your experience, too?
        Mr. Garrigan. Yes; it has. We have all of our work done by
    licensed professional engineers. The second level review is
    also done by a licensed professional engineer.
        The Chairman. What do you suppose the Bureau does for 6
    percent?
        Mr. Garrigan. Give it a cursory review. They take a look at
    it and say, ``Okay, we will stamp it.''
        The Chairman. All right. Thank you. I have no further
    questions.
        Senator Murkowski, do you have any questions? You have one
    of your constituents here today.
        Senator Murkowski. Just very briefly.
        Mr. Chairman, it is tough to see in this corner here. I
    appreciate the testimony. I particularly appreciate your
    providing copies of some of the pictures. I think the pictures
    are quite compelling.
        One of the difficulties that we have in Alaska is just
    educating folks on our lack of a transportation system. When
    you have indicated that many villages did not submit comments
    as to their plan, it is because if you are a community that
    does not have roads, if you are a community that is connected
    by a boardwalk, and you go everywhere by snow machine or a four
    wheeler or a river boat, you do not need to submit a
    transportation road plan because there is no recognized road
    system. That is one of the huge difficulties that we have as a
    State.
        I also appreciate your comments about the inventory and the
    lack of an inventory in Alaska and how essentially we are
    shortchanged on that process. Mr. Chairman, I would just like
    to indicate for the record that I would certainly support the
    appropriations funding for the roads and the increase in the
    funding for the Indian roads, but would urge the BIA to work
    with the State of Alaska on this inventory issue to make it
    work.
        The question I would ask to you, Ms. Bullard, is, as it
    relates to the inventory, is there anything that you can
    suggest or propose that we can do to make that process work for
    us right now?
        Ms. Bullard. One thing that we have requested is a
    definitive description of what needs to be included in the
    inventory. Every time we turn around, the requirements keep
    changing. I think that would help. But I think the other thing
    that needs to be done is that a requirement that our basic
    infrastructure in our villages be included in the BIA roads
    inventory. By limiting us to 2 percent of what has been
    previously in the system, there has never been a complete
    inventory in the State. We are trying to do that. We have
    identified many roads that should be in the inventory, but they
    are not being put in because there is a two percent limitation
    on increases. We feel that is very unfair to the State of
    Alaska and does not reflect the true need of our communities.
        Senator Murkowski. We would like to work with you on that
    and make it work.
        Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to ask the
    question and to hear the testimony of the witnesses today.
    Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        I have one more question of Ms. Bullard. These pictures
    that you submitted for the record for us, but one just came to
    mind here. One is a picture of the main street of Wales, AK,
    and one picture of the main street of Shishmaref. It looks to
    me that that snow is clear up to the top of the roof; is that
    right?
        Ms. Bullard. Yes; in many of the houses there you actually
    have to dig tunnels to get into the homes. They do not do any
    snow removal during the winter time.
        The Chairman. That was going to be my next question. How
    the heck do you move that much snow? The automobiles in that
    town just sit there during the winter.
        Ms. Bullard. They sit during the winter. They use snow
    machines and four wheelers during the winter time.
        Just to use an example of that. I think it was in 1998 that
    the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs at that time, Kevin
    Gover, had gone to Shishmaref. Then we took him to Wales. On
    the day we took him to Wales, people were going from Wales to
    Diomede which is 40 miles off the mainland, because there are
    no ferries. There are no large boats. They do not bring any
    freight barges into that community. People actually run snow
    machines and four wheelers between Wales and Diomede in small
    20 to 25 foot boats.
        The day we were going there, they lost an entire boatload
    of individuals that were trying to travel between Wales and
    Diomede. They had been sitting in Wales waiting for the weather
    for about 3 weeks. They decided to go ahead and go because
    there is no commercial transportation in their community.
        The Chairman. How do you get from Wales to Shishmaref. Is
    that through a barge?
        Ms. Bullard. You can take an airplane between Wales and
    Shishmaref.
        The Chairman. How far is that?
        Ms. Bullard. I would say that is about 50 or 60 miles.
        The Chairman. How did you get Kevin there?
        Ms. Bullard. We flew him in a twin. But between Wales and
    Diomede, the only way to get into Diomede is they have once-a-
    week helicopter service. There is no airport in the summer
    time. It is a winter sea-ice air field.
        The Chairman. Big problems.
        Senator Murkowski. Mr. Chairman, if I could, I would just
    ask Ms. Bullard.
        The Chairman. Certainly.
        Senator Murkowski. Do you have any idea of how many
    vehicles you actually have on Wales?
        Ms. Bullard. In Wales. I do not know. I have not been to
    Wales recently.
        Mr. Milonovich. My experience has been that you get out to
    these remote communities that are on islands and you have 1
    dozen vehicles.
        Ms. Bullard. In some of the communities, yes. But they do
    all have four wheelers and snow machines.
        Senator Murkowski. Which is the primary means of getting
    around.
        Ms. Bullard. There are getting to be more and more vehicles
    in the villages.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        We will submit some questions for the rest of the
    committee. If you can, get those back to us by June 18 because
    we want to use our bill as part as an amendment to the new TEA-
    21 bill.
        We will hold the record open for 2 weeks.
        Thank you for appearing.
        The Committee is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:47 a.m., the committee was adjourned, to
    reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
    =======================================================================

                                A P P E N D I X

                                  ----------

                  Additional Material Submitted for the Record

    =======================================================================

    Prepared Statement of Mark Maryboy, Chairman, Navajo Transportation and
                        Community Development Committee

        My name is Mark Maryboy and I am the chairman of the Navajo
    Transportation and Community Development Committee. I would like to
    begin by thanking this committee for all of their hard work on this
    issue. My remarks today are limited to S. 281 and S. 725. However, the
    Navajo Nation sincerely appreciate all of the bills that have been
    introduced and look forward to working with you to promote the final
    bill that is passed out of this Committee.
        I would like to begin my comments about S. 281 by saying that the
    Navajo Nation is working very hard on its own economic development. We
    have much to overcome. The unemployment rate on the Navajo Nation
    currently ranges seasonally from 36 percent to 50 percent. Our per
    capita income averages $6,123, which is less than one third of that in
    Arizona or New Mexico.
        The commercial vehicle driving training program proposed in S. 281
    could greatly help develop the Dine workforce. With a land base that is
    larger than the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland,
    Massachusetts and Rhode Island combined, the Navajo Nation is long-haul
    territory. In fact, it would be difficult to make a commercial delivery
    from any place west of Durango, CO to any place east of Flagstaff, AZ
    without going through Navajoland. The Navajo people are used to driving
    great distances and might as well get paid for it.
        Like S. 281, S. 725 reflects the Navajo Nation's goal to promote
    self-determination. Both bills authorize a demonstration project that
    would enable tribes to apply directly to the Federal Highway
    Administration for Indian Reservation Road funding so tribes could take
    care of their own roads and bridges without relying upon the BIA. While
    this is an approach that the Navajo Nation has not yet decided to
    pursue, we support the desire of other tribes to do so. Both bills
    create an opportunity that should exist for tribes.
        In addition, S. 725 contains key provisions that would help achieve
    our fundamental goal of making the IRR Program more fair and effective.
    Section 3 contains the five changes the Navajo Nation believes are
    essential to improving the IRR:
        No. 1. Increase funding. We understand the current constraints on
    the Federal budget. That is why we support an incremental increase over
    the next 6 years. We believe that such an approach is a judicious way
    to begin dealing with what BIA estimates to be more than $9.8 billion
    of unmet transportation needs in Indian Country.
        No. 2. Exempt tribes from the obligation limitation. Since the
    passage of TEA-21, which applied the obligation limitation to tribes,
    the IRR Program lost $200 million it was otherwise authorized to
    receive. That capital leakage is staggering when you consider that $200
    million is roughly equivalent to the Program's total annual funding in
    1998. While their unmet needs make tribes the least able to bear the
    burden of the obligation limitation, Native Americans and Alaskan
    Native Villages are experiencing a disproportionate brunt of its
    effect.
        No. 3. Create a tribal bridge program. Tribes must currently decide
    whether a bridge or a road project is their higher priority in order to
    receive funding. That is a choice no community should have to make. On
    Navajo, we have 173 bridges, 27 of which need complete replacement and
    24 of which need major rehabilitation. A separate IRR bridge program
    that includes funding for pre-construction is essential for us to get a
    handle on these major safety concerns.
        No. 4. Fair and Equitable Distribution. TEA-21 is a road
    construction program. The Navajo Nation strongly believes that Federal
    lands highway dollars should therefore be spent on actual road miles.
    We understand that our friends in Alaska are currently having a
    difficult time getting a fair accounting of their road mile inventory
    and we encourage this Committee to develop a special project to remedy
    that situation.
        No. 5. Increase Planning Moneys. The Navajo Nation believes that
    planning is an essential predicate to capacity building. Transportation
    planning on Indian reservations is needed more now than ever because of
    growing populations and new homeland security concerns. The Navajo
    Nation supports increasing the percentage of allocated funds tribes can
    use for transportation planning from the current level of 2 percent to
    4 percent.
        Finally, S. 725 provides authorization for two programs that are
    essential for tribal transportation departments to be able to more
    effectively protect their reservation's people and environment. The
    Tribal Transportation Safety Program in Section 5 would authorize
    funding for tribes to launch buckle-up campaigns, anti-drunk driving
    initiatives and projects to eliminate traffic hazards. Given the fact
    that reservation roads have long been known to be the most hazardous in
    the country, this proposal is long overdue.
        The Tribal Transit Program is also essential for us to be able to
    help people on the reservation get where they need to go and improve or
    preserve air quality by reducing vehicle traffic. The current obstacle
    to developing mass transportation on reservations is the fact that
    tribes must go through the states to get funding. Section 6 of S. 725
    would remedy this situation by enabling tribes to apply directly to the
    Federal Transit Administration.
        I would like to conclude by thanking you for your commitment to
    helping improve the IRR Program. We look forward to partnering with the
    members of this Committee to ensure that IRR legislation is included as
    quickly as possible in the Federal transportation legislation that is
    now winding its way through Congress.

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.001

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.002

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.003

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.004

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.005

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.006

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.007

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.008

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.009

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.010

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.011

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.012

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.013

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.014

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.015

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.016

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.017

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.018

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.019

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.020

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.021

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.022

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.023

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.024

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.025

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.026

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.027

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.028

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.029

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.030

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.031

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.032

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.033

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.034

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.035

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.036

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.037

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.038

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.039

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.040

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.041

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.042

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.043

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.044

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.045

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.046

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.047

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.048

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.049

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.050

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.051

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.052

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.053

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.054

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.055

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.056

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.057

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.058

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.059

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.060

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.061

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.062

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.063

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.064

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.065

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.066

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.067

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.068

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.069

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.070

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.071

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.072

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.073

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.074

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.075

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.076

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.077

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.078

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.079

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.080

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.081

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.082

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.083

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.084

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.085

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.086

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.087

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.088

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.089

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.090

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.091

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.092

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.093

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.094

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.095

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.096

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.097

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.098

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.099

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.100

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.101

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7740.102