[Senate Hearing 111-593]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-593
EXAMINING TRIBAL PROGRAMS AND INITIATIVES PROPOSED IN THE PRESIDENT'S
FISCAL YEAR 2011 BUDGET
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 25, 2010
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Indian Affairs
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
58-128 PDF WASHINGTON : 2010
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota, Chairman
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Vice Chairman
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
KENT CONRAD, North Dakota LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii TOM COBURN, M.D., Oklahoma
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska
JON TESTER, Montana
TOM UDALL, New Mexico
AL FRANKEN, Minnesota
Allison C. Binney, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
David A. Mullon Jr., Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on February 25, 2010................................ 1
Statement of Senator Dorgan...................................... 1
Statement of Senator Franken..................................... 4
Statement of Senator Johnson..................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Statement of Senator Murkowski................................... 27
Statement of Senator Tester...................................... 6
Statement of Senator Udall....................................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Witnesses
Echo Hawk, Hon. Larry, Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs,
U.S. Department of the Interior; accompanied by: Jerry Gidner,
Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs and Bart Stevens, Acting
Director, Bureau of Indian Education........................... 14
Prepared statement........................................... 15
Keel, Hon. Jefferson, President, National Congress of American
Indians........................................................ 31
Prepared statement with attachment........................... 33
Perrelli, Hon. Thomas J., Associate Attorney General, U.S.
Department of Justice.......................................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Roubideaux, Hon. Yvette, M.D., M.P.H., Director, Indian Health
Service, U.S. Depatment of Health and Human Services;
accompanied by Randy Grinnell, Deputy Director................. 10
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Shuravloff, Hon. Marty, Chairman, National American Indian
Housing Council................................................ 57
Prepared statement........................................... 59
Whitefoot, Hon. Patricia, President, National Indian Education
Association.................................................... 43
Prepared statement........................................... 45
Appendix
American Indian Higher Education Consortium, prepared statement.. 77
Begay, Hon. Edward T., Chairman, Navajo Agricultural Products
Industry, prepared statement................................... 75
Gipp, David M., President, United Tribes Technical College,
prepared statement............................................. 69
Iron Cloud, Paul, CEO, Oglala Sioux (Lakota) Housing, prepared
statement...................................................... 74
Kawerak Incorporated, prepared statement......................... 90
Miller, Lloyd B., Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Endreson & Perry,
LLP on behalf of the National Tribal Contract Support Cost
Coalition, prepared statement.................................. 72
Pruner, Mark, President, Native American Broadband Association,
prepared statement............................................. 84
Response to written questions submitted to Hon. Thomas J.
Perrelli by:
Hon. Byron L. Dorgan......................................... 110
Hon. Tom Udall............................................... 112
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Tom Udall........ 107
Rock, Dr. Patrick, President-Elect, National Council of Urban
Indian Health, prepared statement.............................. 87
EXAMINING TRIBAL PROGRAMS AND
INITIATIVES PROPOSED IN THE
PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2011 BUDGET
----------
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2010
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Indian Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:15 p.m. in room
628, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Byron L. Dorgan,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BYRON L. DORGAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA
The Chairman. We are going to call the hearing to order.
This is a hearing of the Indian Affairs Committee of the U.S.
Senate. I appreciate all of you being here. We have a number of
witnesses today at the hearing.
Today we are going to examine the tribal programs and
proposals in the President's Fiscal Year 2011 budget. The
purpose is to gather information as we develop our views and
our estimates letter that we would traditionally send to the
Senate Budget Committee, and our views with respect to
recommendations on appropriations.
President Obama submitted the budget on February 1st. I am
encouraged to see that in some areas, there are proposed
increases for programs to address Indian health care and public
safety issues. Let me say this Committee has fully documented
and described at great length the longstanding unmet needs for
increased funding in many areas of public policy dealing with
American Indians. I am pleased that Mr. Perrelli and Dr.
Roubideaux are here today to expand on the proposed increases
for tribal health and in some areas for tribal justice.
Having said that, let me explain also, I am very concerned
about the budget in some areas, concerned about the proposal
for cuts in construction programs for tribal schools, jails and
housing. Throughout most of this decade, this Committee,
working with the appropriators, had to fight against similar
cuts to tribal construction programs. Fighting against deep
cuts, we were able to maintain at least level funding for many
of these programs. But in doing so, we have actually lost
ground on the backlogs for schools and for jails and for
housing.
I understand that the Administration bases some of these
cuts in part on the significant levels of funding delivered
through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. But
proposing cuts to these programs is not an answer, especially
if it is connected to the money that we put in the stimulus or
the economic Recovery Act. Those funds in the Recovery Act,
while significant, didn't even come close to meeting the
longstanding backlogs for construction and needs that exist in
Indian Country. I pushed very, very hard for $2.5 billion of
the funds, and my colleagues did as well, Senator Johnson and
Senator Franken and many others, for $2.5 billion of funding in
the Economic Recovery Act. That began to but didn't even touch
filling the holes that we needed in these construction
accounts.
There are some things that people need just for purposes of
living. And this Government has promised to provide those
things to reservation communities. A home, basic shelter, safe
place in which to learn, a community free of violence, these
are pretty basic for people. For the past decade, many of these
issues have been largely ignored. With respect to Indian
schools, I have a chart that I wish to show. It shows the
funding levels for Indian school construction from Fiscal Year
1999 to 2009. And you can obviously see the disturbing trend
downward.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The 2011 budget would continue that trend. It proposes $9
million in cuts to school construction funding and $50 million
lost in reprogramming. This cut is despite the fact there are
60 schools on the Department's list of ``schools in poor
condition'' and at this level of funding, it would take 30
years to clear the backlog.
Recent Inspector General reports on Indian schools say that
the condition of many schools ``have the potential to seriously
injure or kill students and faculty.'' A budget cut cannot
possibly be our response to those findings.
With respect to Indian jails, the Interior Department's
budget proposes a $48 million cut to the jails construction
account. This cut comes despite the fact that we have multiple
Interior Department reports proclaiming that the BIA and the
Indian jail system is a national disgrace. This is a 1,200-page
Interior report declaring a multi-billion dollar backlog in
jail and detention facilities for Indian Country. The report
finds that ``the life and safety of officers and inmates are at
risk.''
I have a second chart that shows jail construction funding
levels over the past decade. You will again see a dramatic
decline in funding from earlier in the decade. The result of
this crumbling jail system has an immediate impact on the
tribal community. Tribal courts routinely release prisoners for
lack of bed space. Violent offenders too routinely go
unpunished. And with no deterrence, offenders increase the
levels of their violence. We have held hearings in this
Committee talking about reservations where there are five and
ten times the rate of violent crime that exists in the rest of
the Country. That means people living in those areas fear for
their safety. And that is not a way to live.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
I understand that the Recovery Act provided, the
Administration would say, $225 million for jails construction
to help us catch up with the past cuts. The fact is, we are not
even close to solving the problem. Not even close. And one more
point, with respect to the Indian Housing Block Grant program,
a $120 million cut I think is inappropriate. Again, the
Economic Recovery Act provided housing funds. But again, there
are serious unmet housing needs on Indian reservations. Ninety
thousand families remain homeless or dramatically under-housed.
One-third of Indian house are overcrowded compared to 5 percent
nationally.
We don't have a representative from the Department of
Housing and Urban Development here today. Committee staff are
contacting that Department to get answers about the housing
cuts. But I know that Mr. Shuravloff from the Indian Housing
Council is here to talk about the impacts those cuts will have
on American lives.
Let me make a final point. I understand the process of
writing a budget requires making judgments about what is
important and what isn't. In most committees, you will have
people simply say, well, the areas where we are involved, these
are important. This Committee says something different than
that. This Committee says, in these areas, our Government
signed treaties. In these areas, our Government made explicit
promises. In these areas, our Government has a trust
responsibility. So this is not some normal kind of
appropriation or budget request. This is a question of whether
the Government is going to keep its promise at long, long last.
The sad fact is, for a long, long time, we have not kept the
promises we have made.
My hope is that 1 day soon, and perhaps beginning this day
we will, but we won't with these recommended levels of
expenditure. Let me again say that what is necessary to be done
here is not a major, major addition to the Federal budget. It
is in many ways asterisks that slide off the table on the
amount of money that is paid contractors to do exactly what we
are asking be done in this Country; that is, build roads and
build schools and provide law enforcement, provide security. It
is being done in other parts of the world with taxpayers'
money. How about doing it here where it has been promised for
decade after decade after decade, and the promise hasn't been
kept?
So as you can see, I have some differences here and there
with what is happening. I am going to intend, as my colleagues
will, I am sure, to push as hard as I can for fairness and for
meeting the promises this Country has made.
Let me call on my colleague, Senator Franken. We will call
on them in order of arrival. Senator Franken?
STATEMENT OF HON. AL FRANKEN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA
Senator Franken. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your words. I
am glad to see that the Obama Administration is making Indian
issues a higher priority than previous Administrations. But
that is not saying so much. Let's face it: Indian affairs has
never been a priority in the Federal budget. From Indian health
to education and law enforcement, we have seen woefully
inadequate funding across the board. This year, I am glad to
see that the Bureau of Indian Affairs' budget has prioritized
important provisions like contract support for tribal
governments.
But unfortunately, as the Chairman pointed out so
graphically, it has come at the expense of the construction
budget. Even accounting for the transfer of over $51 million
from construction operations, there is an almost $9 million
decrease in Indian school construction. Our office asked for a
list of school construction projects. The most recent list we
could get was from 2004. That is the most recent list we could
get.
And since 2004, we haven't even gotten through the list of
14 schools that BIA identified as the worst of the worst and in
need of replacement. We simply haven't made school construction
a priority in the budget. The Chairman spoke to the condition
of these schools, about the danger to life and limb to students
and teachers.
As a result of not making this a priority, we see schools
like the Circle of Life School at White Earth Reservation in
northwest Minnesota, we see that school, one of the 14 that was
on that list, still waiting, still waiting. We have had enough
money in the budget to finish only one or two schools every few
years. How are we ever going to get to the $1.3 billion backlog
just to bring Indian schools across the Country into acceptable
condition?
Last week I visited the Leech Lake Reservation in
Minnesota, where the Bug-O-Nay-Ge-Shig School is. And it is one
of 64 schools that are waiting for funding in this backlog.
They have been waiting for years.
The reality is that Indian schools and Indian issues in
general just have not been a Federal funding priority. And
though the Obama Administration has done more than those in the
past, particularly the previous one, there is much, much more
to do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Senator Johnson?
STATEMENT OF HON. TIM JOHNSON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA
Senator Johnson. I associate my thoughts with the Chairman.
And I am going to submit my statement for the record. I ask
unanimous consent for that purpose.
And especially welcome Dr. Roubideaux, who is head of the
HIS and also a Rosebud Sioux member. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Tim Johnson, U.S. Senator from South Dakota
Good afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman for holding this important
hearing. I would also like to welcome back Dr. Roubideaux. It is always
great to have a South Dakota perspective represented here. As you all
know, some of the harshest conditions in Indian Country exist in my
home state of South Dakota and across the Great Plains region, which I
share with the Chairman. These already hard hit communities are most
affected by budgets that we form here in Washington. Even slight
increases or cuts in important tribal programs have significant impacts
on the ability of tribes and tribal organizations to address the basic
needs of their communities. I am pleased with the proposed increases
for some programs in Fiscal Year 2011, including essential boosts in
health care and public safety. I look forward to working with my
colleagues on this committee to further strengthen the budget,
particularly in the areas of education and housing. It is critical that
we do all that we can to fulfill our treaty and trust responsibilities
to Indian Country by providing sufficient funding and support.
The Chairman. Senator Johnson, thank you very much.
Senator Tester?
STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA
Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that you
said it well in your opening remarks.
I would just like to say, and I don't need to tell the
folks in this room this, but the needs in Indian Country are
great. The budget has to address those needs, whether it is
housing or health care or schools or jails or whatever it may
be. It really is up to you folks to get a budget that works.
I will tell you, I have had a lot of frustration in the
past when we have had budgets come before us and there hasn't
been justification, there have just been numbers put on the
page. I look forward through this discussion to make sure that
the numbers match the need, because I think it is critically
important in Indian Country where we have high unemployment and
we have needs in all the things that have been mentioned here
today, we have the opportunity really to put some folks to
work, address unemployment, improve quality of life in Indian
Country. I think that is what the budget should be revolving
around.
If we don't have people within the Administration that are
willing to fight for the needs in Indian Country, it puts us at
a serious disadvantage in addressing the problems that are
occurring in Indian Country.
With that, I want to thank you all for being here. I look
forward to your testimony and I look forward to the questions
that will come after your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Tester, thank you very much.
The panel that is before us is including--I am sorry,
Senator Udall. I did not see you come in.
STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO
Senator Udall. Thank you. Chairman Dorgan, thank you very
much.
I want to thank you for holding this hearing, and I would
also like to associate myself with your remarks. I know that
you have been an incredible advocate while you have been
Chairman of this Committee for Indian Country and the programs
that exist out there. I associate with those.
I want to put my opening statement in the record and then
just briefly say a few things. First of all, there are some
very positive things, I think, in this budget. When I look at
the IHS budget and contract services funding and contract
support services, I think there is something positive there
that we can build on.
I am also pleased to see that the EPA requested a 2 percent
set-aside for tribal drinking water State revolving fund, and
the underlying Clean Water Act also includes a 5 percent set-
aside for tribes. So this is something I have been working on
over in the Environment and Public Works Committee. The Justice
Department has done the same with tribal governments, with a 7
percent set-aside. So I want to see what this second panel has
to say about this, and if the first panel has any reaction,
too.
The thing that concerns me the most are the cuts in school
and detention center construction funding. We have had many
witnesses come before this Committee that have said that we
should have a Marshall plan when it comes to many of the
projects in Indian Country. I agree with that, especially in
the school construction and detention center construction
funding. We need to have a multi-year plan. We need the
Secretary and the president and the other officials that are
here before us to get together and do everything they can to
look at the long term. Whatever these backlogs are, the
billions of dollars that are there, and specifically come up
with a plan to wipe them out. Secretary Babbitt did it under
the Clinton Administration. I think it is doable, even in the
economic climate we are in with the Obama Administration. I
look forward to hearing your comments.
Thank you again, Chairman Dorgan, for all you have done and
for holding this important hearing on the budget.
[The prepared statement of Senator Udall follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Tom Udall, U.S. Senator from New Mexico
I first want to thank Chairman Dorgan for holding this very
important hearing, and each of the witnesses for coming to discuss the
President's budget proposals for Indian Country.
I look forward to hearing from the witnesses, but want to quickly
highlight some of the things in the President's budget that I find very
hopeful, and some of the things that I find concerning and merit
further discussion with the two panels of witnesses.
I am pleased to see the increases in the IHS budget, particularly
in Contract Services Funding and Contract Support Costs. In this era of
increased tribal sovereignty and self determination, Contract Support
Costs are vital to bolstering sovereignty while ensuring that the
federal government is fulfilling its trust responsibility.
I am pleased to see that the EPA requested a 2 percent set-aside
for tribe for the Drinking Water State revolving fund. The underlying
Clean Water Act includes a 0.5 percent set-aside for tribes, and since
2001 the appropriations bills have included a higher set-aside,
generally 1.5 percent and I have been working in the EPW committee to
try to codify the set-aside at a higher level. I believe everyone here
is familiar with the disproportional need for domestic water
infrastructure in Indian Country. I am pleased to see that the EPA has
heard the message.
I am also pleased to see that the Department of Justice has taken a
new and innovative look at tribal justice programs by recommending a 7
percent set-aside for tribal governments for programs within the Office
of Justice Programs that are offered to state and local governments. I
am eager to hear the reaction to this proposal from the second panel of
witnesses.
I am, however, concerned by the cuts in school and detention center
construction funding. I have often promoted the concept of a ``Marshal
Plan'' for Indian Country--a several year plan to remove the backlog of
construction in Indian country, whether it be housing, hospitals,
schools, or jails. I know it would be expensive, but I believe that the
Secretary and the President could put together a plan to wipe out the
backlog and clean the slate. The reductions in school and Indian jail
construction in the President's budget appear to be a step in the wrong
direction, but I look forward to hearing from the panels on this issue.
Again, thank you Chairman Dorgan for holding this hearing, and
thank you to the witnesses for your willingness to join us today. I am
sure this will be a productive discussion of federal funding for Indian
Country.
The Chairman. Senator Udall, thank you very much.
We are joined today by the Honorable Tom Perrelli,
Associate Attorney General of the United States Department of
Justice. Then we are also joined by the Honorable Yvette
Roubideaux, the Director of the Indian Health Service, and the
Honorable Larry Echo Hawk, Assistant Secretary of Indian
Affairs. They have some people accompanying them. I will have
them introduce those who are staffing them.
Mr. Perrelli, why don't you proceed? The entire statements
of the witnesses today will be included in the record, and we
would ask the witnesses to summarize. You may proceed, Mr.
Perrelli.
STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS J. PERRELLI, ASSOCIATE ATTORNEY
GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Mr. Perrelli. Thank you, Chairman Dorgan and members of the
Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today
regarding the President's 2011 budget submission concerning the
Department of Justice's public safety initiatives in tribal
communities.
As I discussed with the Committee when I have testified
previously, the Department of Justice is deeply committed to
working with tribal governments to improve public safety in
Indian Country. While we continue to implement changes that
don't require any new expenditures of tax dollars, the reality
is that resources make a difference. In order to achieve
lasting results, funding for public safety must be broad and
across the board.
We are working to put resources in place quickly and
efficiently to help American Indian and Alaska Native
communities help themselves. In total, the President's Fiscal
Year 2011 budget includes $449 million in resources to assist
Indian Country through DOJ. It includes funds that we would
receive from the Department of Interior for 45 new FBI agents
to support law enforcement efforts in Indian Country and
maintains the increased number of assistant United States
Attorneys in Indian Country that the Department will add in
2010 as a result of the support of members of this Committee.
I want to highlight the 54 percent increase in grant
funding that the President has proposed for 2011. The
President's approach to the Department of Justice's grant
programs is significant, not just because of the size of the
increase, but for the set-aside that the budget calls for in
its implementation. It provides for a 7 percent set-aside, so
essentially $42 million for hiring of tribal law enforcement
personnel; and another 7 percent set-aside. So approximately
$139.5 million for our Office of Justice Programs Indian
Country efforts.
It also includes a set-aside of $42.1 million for certain
Office on Violence Against Women programs. These set-asides
will make a critical difference for tribal communities
attempting to address the serious challenges they face.
Together with additional programs that are designed exclusively
for tribal communities, they result in a total request of
$255.6 million for DOJ grant programs in Indian Country, as I
mentioned, a 54 percent increase.
During the course of the Department's extensive
consultations with tribal leaders over the last year, we have
heard a strong desire for more flexible grant programs to meet
tribal communities' needs more effectively and the need for a
more streamlined grant-making process that will limit the
burdens on tribes already in need of support. We recently
rolled out a comprehensive tribal grant solicitation for Fiscal
Year 2010, attempting to meet the requested need for a more
streamlined process. We are looking toward the Fiscal Year 2011
budget as an opportunity to implement a more flexible program
that will directly address the requests we heard from tribal
leaders.
There are a number of other aspects of the President's
budget worth noting. In particular, our support for permanent
resources for the Office of Tribal Justice. I have talked about
a number of other areas in my written testimony. I am happy to
answer questions about those.
As the Chairman said, and as the President has made clear,
these are lean budget times. We agree with the Committee that
we need to invest today in public safety in tribal communities,
because the problems, as the Chairman said, are severe.
American Indians and Alaska Native communities suffer from
violent crime at far higher rates than other Americans. Some
tribes have rates of crime two, four and sometimes ten times
the national average, with violence against Native women and
children being an extraordinary problem in many places.
So we look forward to working with the Committee today and
in the future on addressing these problems. I thank the
Committee for its interest and support.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Perrelli follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Thomas J. Perrelli, Associate Attorney
General, U.S. Department of Justice
Chairman Dorgan, Vice-Chairman Barrasso, and members of the
Committee:
Thank you for inviting me to testify today regarding the
unprecedented support that the President's FY 2011 Budget provides to
the Department of Justice for public safety initiatives in tribal
communities. As I have previously discussed with the Committee, the
Department of Justice is deeply committed to working with tribal
governments to improve public safety in Indian Country. And while we
will continue to implement changes that do not cost American tax
dollars, the reality is that resources make a difference. In order to
achieve lasting results, funding for public safety must be broad and
across the board.
We are working to put resources in place quickly and efficiently to
help American Indian and Alaska Native communities help themselves. In
total, the President's FY 2011 Budget includes $449 million in
resources to assist Indian Country. It includes funds (provided by the
Department of the Interior) for 45 new FBI agents to support law
enforcement efforts in Indian Country, maintains the increased number
of Assistant U.S. Attorneys in Indian Country that the Department will
add in 2010 as a result of the support of members of this Committee,
and increases grant funding in Indian Country by 54 percent. The
President's FY 2011 Budget provides for a 7 percent set-aside--$42
million--from the COPS Hiring Program to support the hiring of tribal
law enforcement personnel, an additional 7 percent set-aside--$139.5
million--from our Office of Justice Programs (OJP) for Indian Country
efforts, and statutory set-asides totaling $42.1 million for certain
Office on Violence Against Women programs. These set-asides, combined
with numerous Department of Justice programs designed exclusively for
tribal communities result in a total request of $255.6 million for
Department of Justice grant programs in Indian Country.
While the amount of funding is significant, so are our plans to
distribute it. At our listening session in October, at the White House
Tribal Nations Conference in November, and in subsequent meetings and
discussions with tribal leaders, we have consistently heard a strong
desire for more flexible grant programs to meet tribal communities'
needs more effectively. We have been engaged in a consultation process
for FY 2010 to streamline our grantmaking process, and the President's
FY 2011 Budget will enable the Department to implement a large,
flexible, program that directly addresses the requests of many tribal
leaders.
The President's Budget also supports the Department of Justice's
extensive outreach efforts to educate tribal communities about its
Radiation Exposure Compensation Program. The Department seeks
additional funds for its Community Relations Service to expand efforts
to resolve disputes in Indian Country arising from discrimination on
the basis of race, color, and national origin. And as part of the
Department's efforts to institutionalize its Office of Tribal Justice
(OTJ) and better manage its Indian Country initiative, the Department
is seeking additional staffing to support OTJ's expanding
responsibilities.
As the President has made clear, these are lean budget times.
However, as this Committee knows, we must invest today to improve
public safety in tribal communities. The problems in tribal communities
are severe: American Indian and Alaska Native communities suffer from
violent crime at far higher rates than other Americans. Some tribes
have experienced rates of violent crime twice, four times, and in some
cases over 10 times the national average; violence against Native women
and children is a particular problem, with some counties facing murder
rates against Native women well over 10 times the national average; and
reservation-based and clinical research show very high rates of
intimate-partner violence against American Indian and Alaska Native
women.
These problems will not be solved overnight, and money alone will
not solve them. But money will enable FBI and other law enforcement
agents to investigate crimes committed on Reservations. Money will help
train prosecutors of violent crimes perpetrated against Indian women.
Money will help us collect and analyze the data that will inform better
public safety policies. And money will build capacity in tribal
communities so that they can work with their federal partners on
improving public safety.
I thank the Committee for its interest in these critical issues and
its support.
The Chairman. Mr. Perrelli, thank you very much. We
appreciate your being here.
Next we will hear from Yvette Roubideaux, the Director of
the Indian Health Service.
STATEMENT OF HON. YVETTE ROUBIDEAUX, M.D., M.P.H.,
DIRECTOR, INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE, U.S. DEPATMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES; ACCOMPANIED BY RANDY GRINNELL, DEPUTY DIRECTOR
Dr. Roubideaux. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee,
good afternoon. My name is Dr. Yvette Roubideaux, and I am the
Director of the Indian Health Service. I am accompanied by Mr.
Randy Grinnell, the Deputy Director.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to testify on the
President's Fiscal Year 2011 budget request for the Indian
Health Service. While the President's budget request for the
entire Federal Government reflects the need to address fiscal
discipline and Federal debt reduction, the IHS budget request
reflects and continues President Obama's promise to honor
treaty commitments made by the United States. In addition, the
Fiscal Year 2011 budget request reflects Secretary Sebelius'
priority to improve the IHS and represents the largest annual
percent increase compared to other operating divisions within
the Department of Health and Human Services.
The Fiscal Year 2011 President's budget request and
discretionary budget authority for the IHS is over $4.4
billion, an increase of $354 million, or an 8.7 percent
increase over Fiscal Year 2010. The request includes $175
million in increases for pay costs, inflation and population
growth that will cover the rising costs of providing health
care to maintain the current level of services provided in IHS
tribal and urban Indian programs. This amount also includes $38
million to staff and operate newly constructed health
facilities.
The proposed budget also includes $178.5 million increase
for a number of programs and initiatives that will increase
access to care and strengthen the capacity of the Indian Health
system to provide clinical and preventive care, and will help
address longstanding unmet needs and inequities in funding
levels within the Indian Health system. The budget request
includes $44 million for the Indian Health Care Improvement
Fund, which will allow some of our lowest-funded hospitals and
health centers to expand health care services and reduce
backlogs for primary care. The budget request also includes a
$46 million increase in addition to a $37.4 million increase
for pay, population growth and inflation for the contract
health services program, of which an additional $5 million will
be targeted to the Catastrophic Health Emergency Fund, or CHEF
program.
An additional $40 million are also included to fund the
shortfall in contract support costs on top of increases in
inflation for tribes that have assumed management of their
health programs. For the facilities appropriation, the overall
request is $445.2 million, which is an increase of $55.5
million over the Fiscal Year 2010 funding level. With this
increase, the total health care facilities construction budget
is $66.2 million, which will allow for construction to continue
on the replacement hospital in Barrow, Alaska, the San Carlos
Health Center in Arizona, and the Kayenta Health Center on the
Navajo Reservation.
In addition to reflecting the President's and the
Secretary's commitment to improving the quality of and access
to care for American Indians and Alaska Natives served by IHS,
this budget will also help continue progress on my priorities
for how we are changing and improving the Indian Health
Service. This budget renews and strengthens our partnership
with tribes by aligning the agency's budget increases to
reflect tribal priorities. I have carefully listened to tribal
input over the past 9 months, and their priorities include more
funding for IHS in general, as well as funding increases for
current services, the Indian Health Care Improvement Fund,
contract health services, and contract support costs.
Therefore, this budget request includes its greatest increases
in these areas.
In addition, this budget helps to improve the quality of
and access to care and addresses top tribal priorities such as
chronic disease and behavioral health conditions. This budget
also helps us continue to do our work to bring reform to the
Indian Health Service. Over the past 9 months, I have gathered
extensive input from tribes and our staff on priorities for how
to change and improve the IHS. Their input reinforced the need
to change and improve the IHS and for us to focus more on how
we conduct the business of health care. We are working on
improvements in the hiring process, recruitment and retention,
performance management and more effective financial management
and accountability. We have also made significant progress in
developing an effective and accountable property management
system. We are also working to enhance and make more secure our
information technology systems to ensure the protection of
patient care information and improve our administrative
operations.
All of these reforms are being conducted as we make all of
our work more transparent, accountable, fair and inclusive. So
in closing, this budget request is an investment and a
commitment that will result in healthier American Indian and
Alaska Native communities, and will advance the IHS' mission.
Thank you for the opportunity to present the President's Fiscal
Year 2011 budget request for the Indian Health Service.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Roubideaux follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Yvette Roubideaux, M.D., M.P.H., Director,
Indian Health Service, U.S. Depatment of Health and Human Services;
accompanied by Randy Grinnell, Deputy Director
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
Good afternoon. I am Dr. Yvette Roubideaux, Director of the Indian
Health Service. I am accompanied today by Mr. Randy Grinnell, Deputy
Director. I am pleased to have the opportunity to testify on the
President's FY 2011 budget request for the Indian Health Service (IHS).
While the President's FY 2011 budget for the entire federal
government reflects the need to address fiscal discipline and federal
debt reduction, the IHS budget request reflects and continues President
Obama's promise to honor treaty commitments made by the United States.
In addition, the FY 2011 budget request reflects Secretary Sebelius'
priority to improve the IHS, and represents the largest annual percent
increase in discretionary budget authority, compared to other operating
divisions within the Department of Health and Human Services.
The FY 2011 President's budget request in discretionary budget
authority for the IHS is over $4.4 billion, an increase of $354
million, or 8.7 percent, over the final enacted FY 2010 Appropriation
funding level. The request includes $175.6 million in increases for pay
costs, inflation and population growth that will cover the rising costs
of providing health care to maintain the current level of services
provided in IHS, Tribal, and urban Indian programs. This amount also
includes $38.8 million to staff and operate newly constructed health
facilities, including some facilities completely constructed by Tribes
as Joint Venture projects.
The proposed budget also includes a $178.5 million increase for a
number of programs and initiatives that will increase access to care,
and strengthen the capacity of the Indian health system to provide
clinical and preventive care, and will help address longstanding unmet
needs and inequities in funding levels within the Indian health system.
The budget request includes $44 million for the Indian Health Care
Improvement Fund and will allow some of our lowest funded hospitals and
health centers to expand health care services and reduce backlogs for
primary care. The budget request also includes a $46 million increase,
in addition to a $37.4 million increases for pay, population growth,
and inflation, for the Contract Health Services program, of which an
additional $5 million will be targeted to the Catastrophic Health
Emergency Fund (CHEF), for a total funding level of $53 million for the
CHEF. An additional $40 million are also included to fund the shortfall
in Contract Support Costs (CSC) on top of increases for inflation for
Tribes that have assumed the management of health programs previously
managed by the Federal Government, bringing the total increase for CSC
to $45.8 million from the FY 2010 enacted level. These increases
represent some of the highest priorities for Tribes in the past several
years.
For the Facilities appropriation, the overall request is $445.2
million, which is an increase of $55.5 million over the FY 2010 funding
level. Within this increase, the total Health Care Facilities
Construction budget is $66.2 million, which will allow for construction
to continue on the replacement hospital in Barrow, Alaska, the San
Carlos Health Center in Arizona, and the Kayenta Health Center on the
Navajo Reservation.
In addition to reflecting the President and Secretary's commitment
to improve the quality of and access to care for American Indians and
Alaska Natives served by the IHS, this budget will also help continue
progress on my priorities for how we are changing and improving the
IHS. My priorities are to renew and strengthen our partnership with
Tribes; in the context of national health insurance reform, to bring
reform to IHS; to improve the quality of and access to care; and to
make all our work accountable, transparent, fair and inclusive.
This budget renews and strengthens our partnership with Tribes by
aligning the Agency's budget increases to reflect Tribal priorities. I
have carefully listened to Tribal input over the past nine months, and
their priorities include more funding for IHS in general, as well as
funding increases for current services, the Indian Health Care
Improvement Fund, Contract Health Services, and Contract Support Costs.
Therefore, this budget request includes its greatest increases in these
areas. In addition, this budget helps to improve the quality of and
access to care and addresses top Tribal priorities such as chronic
disease and behavioral health conditions.
This budget helps us continue our work to bring reform to the IHS.
Over the past nine months, I have gathered extensive input from Tribes
and our staff on priorities for how to change and improve the IHS.
Tribal priorities for reform focus on broad issues such as the need for
more funding, the distribution of resources, and improving how we
consult with Tribes. Staff priorities focused on how we do business and
how we lead and manage people. Their input reinforced the need for
change and improvement in the IHS and for us to focus more on how we
conduct the business of health care. We are working on improvements in
the hiring process, recruitment and retention, performance management,
and more effective financial management and accountability. We have
also made significant progress in developing an effective and
accountable property management system. We are also working to enhance
and make more secure our information technology systems to ensure the
protection of patient care information and to improve our
administrative operations. All of these reforms are being conducted as
we make all our work more transparent, accountable, fair and inclusive.
The FY 2011 budget proposal will provide resources to help the IHS
further meet its mission. The IHS provides high quality, comprehensive
primary care and public health services through a system of IHS,
Tribal, and Urban operated facilities and programs based on treaties,
judicial determinations, and acts of Congress. This Indian health
system provides services to nearly 1.9 million American Indians and
Alaska Natives through hospitals, health centers, and clinics located
in 35 states, often representing the only source of health care for
many American Indian and Alaska Native individuals, especially for
those who live in the most remote and poverty stricken areas of the
United States. The purchase of health care from private providers is
also an integral component of the health system for services
unavailable in IHS and Tribal facilities or, in some cases, in lieu of
IHS or Tribal health care programs. In addition, unlike many other
health delivery systems, the IHS is involved in the construction of
health facilities, including the construction of quarters necessary for
recruitment and retention of health care providers, as well as being
involved in the construction of water and sewer systems for Indian
communities. I know of no other health care organization that
accomplishes such a wide array of patient care, public and community
services within a single system.
For several years since its inception in 1955 the IHS made
significant strides in reducing early and preventable deaths from
infectious or communicable diseases. However, deaths due to chronic
diseases and behavioral health conditions have been more challenging to
address since they result primarily from lifestyle choices and
individual behaviors. In light of these challenges, there have been
some recent accomplishments to note. For example, in FY 2009, the
proportion of eligible patients who had appropriate colorectal cancer
screening was 33 percent, an increase of four percentage points above
the FY 2008 rate of 29 percent. Colorectal cancers are the third most
common cancer in the United States, and are the third leading cause of
cancer deaths. Colorectal cancer rates among the Alaska Native
population are well above the national average and rates among American
Indians are rising. Improving timely detection and treatment of
colorectal cancer screening will reduce undue morbidity and mortality
associated with this disease. In FY 2009, the proportion of women who
are screened for domestic violence (DV) was 48 percent, an increase of
6 percentage points above the FY 2008 rate of 42 percent. Screening has
a significant impact because it helps identify women at risk for DV and
refers these individuals for services aimed at reducing the prevalence
and impact of domestic violence. The IHS achieved another notable
accomplishment by exceeding the FY 2009 target for breastfeeding rates.
The target was to maintain the proportion of infants 2 months old (45-
89 days old) that are exclusively or mostly breastfed at the FY 2008
baseline result of 28 percent. The FY 2009 result was 33 percent and
exceeded the target. There is evidence that breastfeeding contributes
to lower rates of infectious disease, asthma, and Sudden Infant Death
Syndrome, and is associated with lower childhood obesity rates.
These results were achieved by our predominantly rural, highly
decentralized federal, Tribal, and urban Indian health system, a system
that provides health care services under a variety of challenges. With
the budget proposed for FY 2011, as was the case with significant
increases provided for in the FY 2010 budget, we anticipate seeing a
positive impact in the daily lives of American Indian and Alaska Native
people and progress towards improving the health status of the
communities we serve.
In closing, the President's FY 2011 budget request for the IHS is
an investment and a commitment that will result in healthier American
Indian and Alaska Native communities and will advance the IHS mission
to raise the physical, mental, social, and spiritual health status of
American Indians and Alaska Natives to the highest level.
Thank you for this opportunity to present the President's FY 2011
budget request for the Indian Health Service.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Dr. Roubideaux.
Next we will hear from Assistant Secretary Larry Echo Hawk.
STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY ECHO HAWK, ASSISTANT
SECRETARY FOR INDIAN AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF THE INTERIOR; ACCOMPANIED BY: JERRY GIDNER,
DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND BART
STEVENS, ACTING DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF INDIAN
EDUCATION
Mr. Echo Hawk. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee,
first of all, thank you for your strong statements in support
of Indian Affairs. I appreciate this opportunity to provide the
Department of Interior's statement on the President's 2011
budget request for Indian Affairs.
As the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, I oversee
the Office of the Assistant Secretary and also the Bureau of
Indian Affairs and the Bureau of Indian Education. I have with
me today seated at the table Jerry Gidner, the Director of the
Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Bart Stevens, the Acting Director
of the Bureau of Indian Education.
The President has requested $2,556,000,000 for Indian
Affairs at the Department of the Interior. Through the work of
the Tribal Budget Advisory Council, this budget has been
crafted after careful consultation with American Indian and
Alaska Native government representatives. The President called
upon members of his Administration to meet important objectives
while exercising fiscal responsibility.
Consistent with that directive, we had to make difficult
choices in formulating this budget request for Indian Affairs.
The Fiscal Year 2011 request is $53.6 million below the Fiscal
Year 2010 enacted budget level.
However, excluding the one-time increase in 2010 for
forward funding tribal colleges and universities and efficiency
reductions, the 2011 budget is level with the 2010 budget. And
if you compare that to the 2009 appropriation, it is an 8
percent increase.
The $2.6 billion budget of the President focuses on
priority areas in Indian Country. I am sure the Committee is
well aware of the particulars. But just to highlight, as a part
of the President's Empowering Tribal Nations initiative, under
the category of advancing nation to nation relationships, there
is a $29.9 million increase. And this has a sizable increase of
$21.5 million for contract support and also $3 million for
small and needy tribes.
Under the category of protecting Indian Country, there is a
$20 million increase aimed at generating more Federal law
enforcement within the bounds of Indian Country and also
providing the maintenance and operation of newly constructed
detention facilities under the Department of Justice. Under the
category of advancing Indian education, we have increased $8.9
million. That addresses school safety concerns to the level of
about $5.9 million as well as tribal grant support at $3
million.
The next category, improving trust land management, has an
increase of $11.8 million. We focus on energy, both
conventional and renewable, climate change adaptation, and also
water rights protection.
So in sum, that budget request is more than $70 million in
program increases that will strengthen tribal management over
federally funded programs and enhance education, public safety,
energy and trust land and resource programs. This budget will
serve over 1.7 million American Indians and Alaska Natives. I
point out that almost 90 percent of all appropriations are to
be expended at the local level. Of that 90 percent, over 62
percent of the appropriations are provided directly to tribes.
I know that there are extremely great needs in Indian
Country. But I believe President Obama's Administration has
faithfully sought to meet those needs.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Echo Hawk follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Larry Echo Hawk, Assistant Secretary for
Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior
Good afternoon Mr. Chairman, Vice Chairman, and members of the
Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to provide the Department of
the Interior's (Department) statement on the fiscal year (FY) 2011
President's Budget request that was released on February 1, 2010 for
Indian programs. The FY 2011 budget request for Indian Affairs programs
within the Department totals $2.6 billion. This reflects a decrease of
$3.6 million from the 2010 enacted level, excluding the $50.0 million
in one-time funding to forward-fund tribal colleges in 2010. The budget
focuses on priority areas in Indian Country and honors the Federal
Government's obligation to federally recognized American Indian and
Alaska Native governments in an informed and focused manner.
As the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, I have the
responsibility to oversee the numerous programs within the Bureau of
Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE), along
with other programs within the immediate office of the Assistant
Secretary for Indian Affairs. The Office of Indian Affairs' BIA and BIE
programs expend over 90 percent of appropriations at the local level.
Of this amount, at least 62 percent of the appropriations are provided
directly to tribes and tribal organizations through grants, contracts,
and compacts for tribes to operate government programs and schools.
Indian Affairs' programs serve the more than 1.7 million American
Indian and Alaska Natives located on or near reservations.
The Office of Indian Affairs 2011 budget request provides funding
for three of the Department's 2011 priority initiatives: the Empowering
Tribal Nations initiative; the New Energy Frontier initiative; and the
Climate Change Adaptation initiative.
Empowering Tribal Nations
The Empowering Tribal Nations initiative is a multi-faceted effort
that will advance Nation-to-Nation relationships, improve Indian
education, protect Indian communities and reform trust land management,
with the ultimate goal of greater self-determination. This initiative
actually began before this budget request when then candidate for
President, and now President Obama, promised that a new era of change
would include direct dialogue between Tribal Nations and this
Administration. This promise, followed up by action, came to fruition
in November 2009, when the White House held the Tribal Nations'
Conference at the Department's Yates Auditorium, with over 400 Tribal
leaders in attendance.
Nation-to-Nation Relationship
This Administration believes that investing in Indian Country is
the key to advancing our Nation-to-Nation relationship, and therefore
seeks $29.9 million in programmatic increases for contract support,
self determination contract specialists, social workers, support for
small tribal governments, and the final year of the Washington
Shellfish settlement. At the forefront of this investment is contract
support, which was identified by many Tribal Nations as their top
priority. The increase in contract support will allow the BIA to pay
approximately 94 percent of the identified need for contract support
costs in FY 2011.
Funding contract support costs encourages tribal contracting and
supports Indian self-determination. Contract support funds are used by
tribes that manage Federal programs to pay a wide range of
administrative and management costs, including finance, personnel,
maintenance, insurance, utilities, audits, communications, and vehicle
costs.
The requested 2011 increases will also allow the BIA to fund Self-
Determination Specialist positions to ensure proper contract oversight.
In addition, it will allow the BIA to add more Social Workers to assist
tribal communities in addressing problems associated with high
unemployment and substance abuse. We also plan for $3.0 million of this
request to go toward support for small Tribes (those with a population
of less than 1,700) in order to improve the effectiveness of their
tribal governments.
Protecting Indian Country
For the past several years, Tribal Nations have consistently
identified that increased public safety in Indian Country is one of
their top priorities. The BIA has a service population of over 1.7
million American Indians and Alaska Natives who belong to 564 federally
recognized tribes. The BIA supports 191 law enforcement programs with
42 BIA-operated programs and 149 tribally-operated programs.
Approximately 78 percent of the total BIA Office of Justice Services
(OJS) programs are outsourced to Tribes.
President Obama, Secretary Salazar and I have heard from Indian
Country that increased public safety is a top priority. The FY 2011
budget request seeks an additional $20 million in public safety funding
over the FY 2010 enacted levels. This additional funding will support
the Department's ``Protecting Indian Country'' initiative, which will
fund new law enforcement agents and provide funding for detention
center operations in Indian Country.
This budget reflects this commitment to public safety in Indian
Country by collaborating with the Department of Justice for additional
FBI agents dedicated to protecting Indian lands. Of this increase,
$19.0 million will be provided via reimbursement by BIA to DOJ to fund
additional FBI agents. The FBI has primary jurisdiction over major
crimes on more than 200 reservations with approximately 105 agents
available to investigate crimes that occur in Indian Country. The
reimbursable funding provided to the FBI will add 45 agents as well as
other personnel, assuring that the resources will be spent in Indian
Country and focused on high-priority areas like drug trafficking and
the violence related to it. The budget also proposes an increase of
$1.0 million for detention center operations and maintenance for new
facilities built with DOJ grants.
Advancing Indian Education
The BIE is one of only two agencies in the federal government that
manages a school system, the other being the Department of Defense.
Education is critical to ensuring a viable and prosperous future for
tribal communities and American Indians. One of our top priorities is
to improve Indian education and provide quality educational
opportunities for those students who walk the hallways of the 183 BIE
funded elementary and secondary schools and dormitories located on 63
reservations in 23 states and serving approximately 42,000 students.
The 2011 request maintains the Department's ongoing commitment to
improve Indian education for students in bureau-funded schools and
tribally controlled colleges. The budget sustains 2010 funding levels
for many programs, and provides an increase of $8.9 million for key
programs. The budget request includes an increase of $5.9 million to
promote safe and secure schools. Of this increase, $3.9 million will be
used to implement safety and security programs at 10 schools to
mitigate security issues identified by the Inspector General in the
past year, and to train staff to deal effectively with high risk
student behaviors. The remaining $2.0 million will provide funds for 13
full-time environmental professionals to conduct environmental audits
at BIE schools.
Another component of BIE funding is Tribal Grant Support Costs,
which cover administrative and indirect costs at 124 tribally
controlled schools and residential facilities. Tribes operating BIE-
funded schools under contract or grant authorization use these funds to
pay for the administrative overhead necessary to operate a school, meet
legal requirements, and carry out other support functions that would
otherwise be provided by the BIE school system. The budget increases
funding for these activities by $3.0 million.
I should note again that we were successful in our effort to
forward-fund tribal colleges in 2010, so that one-time funding of $50
million is not needed in 2011.
Improving Trust Land Management
In addition to the human services components of Indian Affairs, the
United States holds 55 million surface acres of land and 57 million
acres of subsurface mineral estates in trust for tribes and individual
Indians.
This Administration seeks to advance the Empowering Tribal Nations
initiative by assisting Tribes in the management, development and
protection of Indian trust land, as well as natural resources on those
lands. The 2011 budget request includes $9.1 million in programmatic
increases for land management, improvements, water management,
cadastral surveys and dam safety.
Within these proposed increases for FY 2011, the BIA seeks to
promote development within the former Bennett Freeze area in Arizona
with $1.2 million. There are more than 12,000 Navajo people living in
this area, which was subjected to restrictions on development over a
40-year period involving a land dispute between the Navajo Tribe and
Hopi Tribe. Additionally, the requested increases will go toward
meeting the requirements of the Nez Perce/Snake River water rights
settlement and will also go toward the probate program in BIA.
New Energy Frontier
Indian Affairs works closely with tribes to assist them with the
exploration and development of tribal lands with active and potential
energy resources. These lands have the potential for both conventional
and renewable energy resource development. The 2011 budget includes an
increase of $2.5 million in Indian Affairs for energy projects as part
of the Department's New Energy Frontier initiative.
This increase includes $1.0 million in the Minerals and Mining
program to provide grants directly to Tribes for projects to evaluate
and develop energy resources on tribal trust land. The budget also
contains a $1.0 million increase for conventional energy development on
the Fort Berthold Reservation. To further expedite energy development
on the Fort Berthold Reservation, Indian Affairs, the Bureau of Land
Management, Minerals Management Service, and the Office of the Special
Trustee for American Indians will create a ``virtual'' one-stop shop.
The budget includes a $500,000 increase to support staff onsite, as
well as provide on-call access to the full range of the Department's
operational and financial management services.
Climate Change Adaptation
The budget also includes $200,000 as part of the Department's
Climate Change Adaptation initiative. This funding will support BIA and
tribal collaboration with the Department's Landscape Conservation
Cooperatives (LCC), providing tribal input and perspective to climate
adaptation issues in the form of traditional ecological knowledge.
Indian Affairs will suggest strategies to address adaptation and
mitigation for climate change on Indian lands when working with the
LCCs. Both Indian Affairs' staff and local tribal members will be
involved with the LCCs.
Cobell Settlement
I was recused from participating in discussions about Cobell v.
Salazar, a case involving the management of individual Indian trust
accounts related to Indian lands, but I am pleased to report that the
budget also takes into account the settlement agreement in the case.
Pending Congressional action and final approval by the Court, $3.412
billion will be expended from the Judgment Fund in 2010, including
payments made to settle individual claims. Also within this total, the
settlement agreement provides that $2.0 billion will be transferred to
a Trust Land Consolidation Fund to be administered by the Department of
the Interior for the buy-back and consolidation of fractionated land
interests.
Requested Decreases
The initiatives described above, and the related increases in the
Administration's request, mark a significant step toward the
advancement of the federal government's relationship with Tribal
Nations. These initiatives focus on those programs geared toward
empowering Tribal Nations, and reflect the President's priorities to
support economic development in Indian Country.
The President has also called upon members of his Administration to
meet important objectives while also exercising fiscal responsibility.
Consistent with that directive, we made several difficult choices in
the FY 2011 appropriations request for Indian Affairs.
The construction program contains program reductions of $51.6
million. The request takes into consideration the $285.0 million that
was provided to Indian Affairs for school and detention center
construction activities and $225.0 million provided to the Department
of Justice for detention center construction under the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act. With funding from the Recovery Act,
Indian Affairs will complete a number of high-priority projects. The
request also reflects a proposed transfer of some maintenance funding
from the construction account to the operations account.
The amount requested for construction includes: $52.9 million for
Education, $11.4 million for Public Safety and Justice, $42.2 million
for Resource Management, and $9.3 million for other program
construction. An increase of $3.8 million for the Safety of Dams
program is also included. At $52.9 million, the Education Construction
budget will fund phase two of the Denehotso replacement school, one
school facility replacement project, and support employee housing. The
budget maintains essential funding for facility improvement and repair
projects at $34.6 million. The Public Safety and Justice Construction
program is funded at $11.4 million to support employee housing and
facilities improvement and repairs at detention centers.
Conclusion
The 2011 budget for Indian Affairs achieves the President's
objectives of restoring fiscal discipline, helping empower tribal
nations and foster responsible development of tribal energy resources
and improving the Nation-to-Nation relationship between tribal nations
and the United States. The pool of federal resources is not unlimited,
and we heeded the President's call to act responsibly to maximize our
impact while limiting spending growth.
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today. I am happy to answer any
questions you may have.
The Chairman. Mr. Echo Hawk, thank you very much.
I am going to reserve my questions, I will question at the
end of the panel. I will begin with Senator Franken.
Senator Franken. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank all of
you.
Beyond the lack of funding for school construction, there
is a transparency issue. BIA has a metric called the Facilities
Construction Index, or FCI, that it uses to assess the
condition of each particular school on its school construction
list. As a Senator, when I asked for a list of schools with the
FCI for each school, I get it. But the tribe and the general
public don't get to see the list with the FCI.
Now, I understand that there is a No Child Left Behind
rulemaking process to come up with a way to prioritize in
Indian schools for construction. I am glad that is moving
forward in this Administration. But that process is going to
take at least another year.
In the meantime, the public needs to know the dismal
conditions these schools are in. Only when people know what is
happening will there be an impetus to make school construction
a priority in the budget. Secretary Echo Hawk, while we are
waiting for the NCLB rulemaking process, is BIA willing to post
online the full list of 64 Indian schools in need of
replacement or repair with the FCI for each?
Mr. Echo Hawk. Thank you, Senator Franken. I believe in
transparency, the school replacement construction priority list
formulated in 2004 is now being reviewed in that negotiating
rulemaking committee. And that is a transparent process. I
think there is one other list, known as poor condition. It is
not a priority list. It is a list that has been generated to
identify just what the needs are.
Senator Franken. Will you publish that list with the FCI of
each?
Mr. Echo Hawk. Senator Franken, that list is on the Bureau
of Indian Affairs website.
Senator Franken. It is not on with the FCI.
Mr. Echo Hawk. Senator Franken, staff tells me that it is.
Senator Franken. OK. I am told something different by my
staff. This isn't the first time that I have been told
something in these hearings about this list and about these
lists that wasn't true.
Mr. Echo Hawk. Senator Franken, staff has told me that it
was actually published yesterday.
[Laughter.]
Senator Franken. OK. Well, my office was asking about this
list. And now I kind of understand how that might have
happened.
I want to address the issue of costs. The Director of
Facilities, Environmental and Cultural Resources for Indian
Affairs at the Department of the Interior told my staff that it
costs approximately $30 billion to $50 billion to replace a BIA
school. There is only $52.8 million in the President's budget
for Indian school construction for the entire year. So we have
this enormous cost per school and barely any money to fund it.
Is the cost of replacing a BIA school comparable to the
cost associated with schools in non-tribal areas? And if there
is a difference, what accounts for it? Do you want to get back
to me with a written answer.
Mr. Echo Hawk. Senator Franken, I have staff in the room
that could answer that question in detail. We would be happy to
communicate directly with your staff.
Senator Franken. I am running out of time. I want to get to
one last thing. This is about BIA detention facilities that are
operations funding. Last week I was at the Red Lake
Reservation, in addition to being at Leech Lake in northern
Minnesota. I saw their new juvenile detention, minimum security
facility, which was built 5 years ago. It is absolutely
beautiful. It sat empty, though, for the last 5 years, because
the BIA has not provided funding for operations.
This facility was built with Department of Justice funding
under President Clinton's Indian Country Law Enforcement
initiative back in 1998. Is it true that under that initiative,
the policy was that the Department of Justice would fund
construction of detention facilities and the Department of the
Interior agreed to seek funding for operating these facilities
going forward? I have a copy of a letter from 1998 from then-
Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs Kevin Gover, assuring
tribal governments that the BIA Office of Law Enforcement
Services would be responsible for requesting operational
funding for each detention facility constructed by DOJ under
the program. I also have a Department of the Interior memo from
2000 clearly saying that, ``The Office of Law Enforcement
Services will be responsible for requesting funds for staffing
and program operations at these facilities'' I ask unanimous
consent to submit both of these documents for the record, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Franken. Does the policy laid out under the Clinton
Administration's Indian Country law enforcement initiative
remain the policy of the Bureau of Indian Affairs today, sir?
Mr. Echo Hawk. Mr. Chairman and Senator Franken, I
acknowledge that is the policy.
Senator Franken. Then we have a facility that was built
under that policy that has remained empty for 5 years because
there is no money to operate it at all.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Franken, thank you very much.
Senator Johnson?
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am grateful to Mr. Echo Hawk. I am very grateful for the
stimulus funding that is benefiting reservations in my State of
South Dakota. While these funds are essential to all of Indian
Country, they are only a start and certainly do not make up for
years of chronic under-funding.
I am concerned that stimulus moneys have triggered cuts in
Fiscal Year 2011 funding, particularly for school construction
and housing. Given the significant cuts, does the
Administration have a plan to continue the progress made with
stimulus funding?
Mr. Echo Hawk. Mr. Chairman and Senator Johnson, the
overall budget for Indian Affairs I think does take into
account that we received $285 million in stimulus for
construction. And in the process of making hard choices about
how to craft this budget to be fiscally responsible, I think
that we did look at that fact. As I told this Committee during
my confirmation hearing, I intended to learn what the needs
were in Indian Country and to be a forceful advocate for Indian
Country and trying to build the budgets that would bring
lasting change into communities. I can only commit that we will
aggressively pursue plans to meet the needs out there in Indian
Country for construction of schools and law enforcement and
detention facilities.
Senator Johnson. Mr. Perrelli, while I am grateful for the
increase in the COPS program, I am concerned about the cuts in
tribal courts, tribal youth, jail construction, alcohol and
substance abuse and civil and criminal assistance. Are there
going to be cuts in personnel from the tribal court system?
Mr. Perrelli. Thank you for the question, Senator. With
respect to the tribal programs in the Office of Justice
Programs to which you are referring, rather than seeking a
separate appropriation for each of those line items, we are
seeking a 7 percent set-aside for tribal programs for those
purposes out of all the Office of Justice Programs funds. The
result is rather than seeking, as was sought in Fiscal Year
2010, $75 million in the tribal courts detention facility
categories, we are seeking over $140 million overall.
So I don't think it is actually a cut. As I indicated, we
are seeking a significant increase. And we are planning to work
with this Committee and with the Appropriations Committee on
developing the most flexible way that tribes can use those
funds.
Certainly when we have gone through our listening sessions
with tribal leaders, what we have heard is frustration at times
about the inability to use funds for their actual needs. The
detention facility situation is an example where there are
tribes who have said to us, we would like to build a justice
center, but the statute in the detention facility grant program
only allows you to build the jail portion and not something
else. That is something that the tribal law bill I think has
done, made some efforts to seek to address.
So we are actually seeking more funds. But we are seeking
more flexibility for tribal governments as well.
Senator Johnson. Are you telling me that tribal courts
appears in the Office of Justice Programs?
Mr. Perrelli. I am sorry, sir?
Senator Johnson. Tribal courts, the line item for tribal
courts, appears in the Office of Justice Programs?
Mr. Perrelli. Yes, it does.
Senator Johnson. What other programs are there in the
Office of Justice programs?
Mr. Perrelli. That is primarily tribal courts, alcohol and
substance abuse, training and technical assistance for civil
and criminal legal assistance, and tribal construction. Those
are areas where in Fiscal Year 2010 we sought $75 million. Here
we are seeking again a set-aside, out of all the Office of
Justice Programs programs, which is a broader set of programs,
of 7 percent specifically for tribal governments. And as I
indicated, the hope is to develop the most flexible program
that would allow funds appropriately to be used, whether it is
for construction, tribal courts and other areas.
Senator Johnson. Is there funding for, Dr. Roubideaux, is
there funding for the Cheyenne River and Sisseton-Wapeton
hospitals?
Dr. Roubideaux. Yes. The Cheyenne River Hospital is being
built with Recovery Act funds, as you are aware. We also
included in this budget the proposal the first month's worth of
staffing for that hospital in the current services line.
I had the opportunity to visit that hospital a few months
ago. It was beautiful, and the construction is really
progressing very well on it. It is just a great example of how
health care facilities are so important for our communities.
They represent their hopes and dreams for better health care.
So we are doing what we can to finish that facility on time and
make sure it gets the staff it needs.
Senator Johnson. Do you view the combined VA IHS facility
in Wagner, South Dakota, for what could happen in terms of
cooperation in the future?
Dr. Roubideaux. Yes. I think that is an excellent example.
Senator Johnson. I have no more questions.
The Chairman. Senator Johnson, thank you very much.
Senator Tester?
Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will go back to
Mr. Perrelli for a bit here.
I want to kind of follow up on some of Senator Johnson's
questions. On the $75 million cut, you said there was a 7
percent set-aside, so really it is a $140 million program now.
Where are those funds set aside from?
Mr. Perrelli. They are set aside from the broader universe
of the Office of Justice Programs.
Senator Tester. How much was that broader universe
increased, or was it increased in the budget?
Mr. Perrelli. That went down in the budget. So Fiscal Year
2010, our State and local assistance, it was $2.98 million,
Fiscal Year 2010 enacted. Our Fiscal Year 2011 request for the
Office of Justice Programs is $2.87 million.
Senator Tester. And then you are going to pull another $1.4
million off of that, or $2.87 billion, so you are going to pull
another $140 million out?
Mr. Perrelli. The $140 million of that will be set aside
for other projects.
Senator Tester. And then the program is going to be
reduced, and I assume you looked at it through a sharp pencil.
And then it is going to be reduced again with this set-aside.
Mr. Perrelli. No. The program, the moneys are not going to
be reduced from the set-aside. In other words, in Fiscal Year
2010, the programs that were specifically for tribal
communities totaled, out of that $2.98 billion, roughly $75
million. In Fiscal Year 2011, we are seeking $140 million, a
significant increase in programs that are set aside for tribal
governments. But rather than seeking the funds in the tribal
court line item, the tribal construction line item, we are
seeking that $140 million in a single block.
Senator Tester. I understand that. And maybe I am not
tracking you. But it seems to me that if you are setting money
from a budget that is being reduced some, then you are setting
some more money aside that wasn't set aside in the previous
fiscal year, that means that money can't be used in what it was
used for in the previous fiscal year, it is being used for
these programs.
Mr. Perrelli. The budget was principally reduced by
elimination of earmarks. But if the question is, does setting
aside money for tribal communities mean there is less money for
State and local law enforcement and other communities, that is
correct.
Senator Tester. OK. And then we have a way to deal with
that issue, too, outside Indian Country?
Mr. Perrelli. I think that what was principally reduced was
elimination of earmarks.
Senator Tester. Another couple of questions. And I assume
from the answers to Senator Johnson's questions, you are doing
this for flexibility reasons, so tribes have greater
flexibility?
Mr. Perrelli. That is correct.
Senator Tester. Will the tribes determine how the money is
going to be allocated, then?
Mr. Perrelli. I think we are still developing the program,
and we are going to continue to consult with tribal governments
and hopefully work with this Committee and the appropriators
about how that will work. But I think the primary request we
got from tribal leaders was a grant program that would allow
them to more flexibly address their particular needs.
Senator Tester. OK. Mr. Echo Hawk, I was going to ask Mr.
Perrelli this question, but I will just depend on your answer.
We give the BIA an extra $19 million so they can reimburse
Justice. Why not just give the money to Justice? Why not just
give them the $19 million instead of giving it to you and you
give it to them?
Mr. Echo Hawk. Mr. Chairman, Senator Tester, I think the
idea there is that if it is in the Indian Affairs budget, we
have some control to make sure it actually goes to Indian
Country. We have been working very closely, collaborating with
the Department of Justice. I think we can assure you that that
money will end up where it is intended.
Senator Tester. Otherwise, you are concerned that it
wouldn't, if we just cut Mr. Perrelli a $19 million check. Is
that correct?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Echo Hawk. Mr. Chairman and Senator Tester, I think I
commented, we have a good working relationship.
Senator Tester. I don't want to put you on the spot too
much.
All right. Ms. Roubideaux, you were in Billings last week.
Unfortunately, I didn't know about the visit. It is not so bad
if I wasn't on Indian Affairs, but I am on Indian Affairs.
Consequently, it would have been good to know, not from a
perspective of me being able to welcome you, which I would
have, but from a standpoint of us having to scramble to get
staff there, because we didn't know about it.
That being said, I hope next time you are in town, we know
about it. Because we like you, and we would like to be a part
of what you are doing. It would help me on this Committee if we
know about it.
I guess the question I have is, you talked about
priorities, listing of priorities for the last 9 months. Can
you tell me what priorities you heard from the tribes in that
meeting?
Dr. Roubideaux. Well, I thought I was going to see you
there. I had heard that we had notified your staff, and I
actually asked when I got there, when is Senator Tester
arriving. So I am disappointed as well, so we will work on the
communication.
Senator Tester. Absolutely.
Dr. Roubideaux. I had a wonderful time visiting the
Billings area. It is a part of my effort to now spread my
priorities into all 12 areas. I visited two areas so far, so
you were the second on the list. I had a great time talking
with the tribal leaders there. They are very concerned about
the health of their people, as you know. And they have many
concerns. Chief among them is the lack of funding for Indian
health. They told me loudly and clearly that we needed more.
They also told us that they wanted us to improve how we do
business in a number of areas, including our contract health
services program. And we are working on improving the way we do
business. I just initiated formal tribal consultation in that
area and was going to have a meeting on best practices and an
input session during the snowstorm.
I am actually appointing two tribal officials from each
area to come on a work group to help look at how we can improve
that program. The other issue was customer service. That is the
last one I will mention. We still have some problems with
customer service in our agency and I have made it clear that it
is a priority of mine, that we need to treat our patients with
respect and dignity. And we will be working very hard on this,
including in our performance management process over the next
few years.
Senator Tester. And I assume that you have heard these
comments in other places around Indian Country. Does this
budget deal with the lack of funding for Indian health care in
a way that will address those problems? Does it deal with
contract health services in a way that will address those
problems? And do you have a plan for addressing the customer
service aspects from a respect and dignity standpoint?
Dr. Roubideaux. Yes. I am grateful to the President for
this budget, because I think it is a great next step in our
ability to address these issues. In terms of contract health
services, we have a lot of work to do to improve the way we do
business, how we educate our patients, how we work with our
referral partners and how we do our billing practices. All of
those are things that we are working on right now.
Customer service, the first step was for me as the Director
to say that it was important. I got a great deal of thanks from
our patients and our staff for doing that. That is what strong
leadership is about, is first helping people understand what
the priorities are. And now we are actually going to put this
in our performance management system, so that we will be able
to rate our employees on their customer service. I have not
announced it yet, but I am going to ask our patients to help
teach our providers and our staff how to do well on customer
service. I think it is incredibly important.
And the last thing is, I am going to try to find ways to
reward our employees who provide good customer service in a
better way.
Senator Tester. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
apologize for running over.
The Chairman. Senator Tester, thank you very much.
Senator Udall?
Senator Udall. Thank you, Chairman Dorgan. Secretary Echo
Hawk, could you address the President's cut in funding for the
construction of schools? I understand that a portion of the
funding is simply being transferred between accounts, but that
there is still a reduction in funds for construction, and what
impact that is going to have. I was unclear from your testimony
whether you all actually consider it a cut or it is a flat
budget from over last year.
Mr. Echo Hawk. Mr. Chairman and Senator Udall, there is
$115 million in our budget for construction. And there is a $9
million reduction when it comes to school construction. So I
think the explanation for that, I think I have already
commented, is the fact that with the stimulus money we received
substantial amounts for detention and school construction. And
in order to move forward on important priorities, other
priorities identified by tribal representatives, it was one of
those tough decisions that we made.
But that does not signal that we are giving up on
aggressive and strong support for school construction.
Senator Udall. What is the current backlog for school
construction? The overall number.
Mr. Echo Hawk. Mr. Chairman and Senator Udall, $1.3
billion.
Senator Udall. One point three billion. OK. And obviously
under your current funding levels that you have requested,
there is no way you could wipe that out.
Mr. Echo Hawk. Mr. Chairman and Senator Udall, there is no
way.
Senator Udall. On these schools, and I am very interested,
because a number of schools in New Mexico have these incredible
deficiencies that aren't being taken care of, and the health
and safety of the kids is threatened. There was a Bureau of
Indian Affairs Inspector General report just several years ago
that covered some of these conditions. These were the kinds of
things that this Inspector General said: ``Although we have not
yet completed this audit, we wanted to bring your attention to
serious health and safety deficiencies we identified in BIE
schools. We found severe deterioration at elementary and
secondary schools, including boarding schools.'' And at one
point they say, ``These severe deficiencies have the potential
to seriously injure or kill students and faculty and require
immediate attention to mitigate problems.'' Now, this was
applying to boarding schools in Arizona and New Mexico.
My question is, and this is before you got there, but after
receiving a report like this, which was devastating in terms of
what was happening in these schools, and a devastating
indictment. Did the Department move to correct these
deficiencies, and did you do a review of all of your schools in
light of this report, to see what the deficiencies were and how
you would move forward with them?
Mr. Echo Hawk. Mr. Chairman and Senator Udall, I think I
can only account for the last 8 months. I can't speak to what
action was taken under prior Administrations. But in my first 8
months of service, I have taken time to travel to virtually
every quarter of the Country and Indian Country, going into
communities, visiting schools, detention facilities and so
forth, to learn more about what the true needs are. I recognize
there are enormous needs when it comes to the condition of
schools. Those needs are identified and we would just be
willing and anxious to work with this Committee to see what we
can do to make progress in meeting that enormous backlog.
Senator Udall. Thank you very much. I think one of the ways
to meet the backlog, and I know that you are going to argue for
this within the Administration, is to come up with a multi-year
plan. Because currently, the way we are approaching this, we
are never going to really reduce the backlog. Obviously, the
ARRA moneys make a difference, but we are still a long ways
off. I thank the Chairman for your indulgence.
The Chairman. Senator Udall, thank you very much.
Dr. Roubideaux, let me ask you about--I am sorry, Senator
Murkowski, why don't you proceed. I apologize.
STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
Deputy Under Secretary Echo Hawk, first I want to thank
you. I appreciate the commitment that has been made with regard
to the tribal priority allocation . I know that Loretta
Bullard, who is president of Kawerak Inc., and Gloria O'Neil,
have long advocated at the BIA budget advisory meetings for a
need in adequate funding. I understand that there is a minimal
increase, $3 million, to the small and needy tribes. It is not
much, but every little bit helps for these smaller tribes
across the Country.
A couple of questions. First, is one that I have asked over
the years at these hearings. This is the Juneau BIA office and
its future. My position has been that we need to keep the BIA
offices there in Juneau, in the capital city, in southeastern
Alaska. It is very important to the region's economy. Can you
give me an update on what the status is on that office, and
where we might be in hiring a BIA Alaska area director?
Mr. Echo Hawk. Senator Murkowski, the response is the same
that I have given previously on this question. The regional
director did move from Juneau to Anchorage. But there are no
plans to move the rest of that office. So that would remain in
Juneau.
Senator Murkowski. And then as far as the status of hiring
an Alaska area director? We are still good?
Mr. Echo Hawk. Mr. Chairman and Senator Murkowski, that is
still in process and very near completion. But we are at the
stage where very soon we will be consulting with the Alaska
Native leaders on that selection.
Senator Murkowski. If you can, keep us apprised of that.
The other issue is that of the Indian reservation roads. I
think just about every Native group, every tribe that comes to
visit me here in Washington has raised and expressed their
concerns about the IRR program at the BIA. I am told that many
of the tribes have moved over to the Federal Highways just to
avoid the administrative hurdles that they have to go through
with the Bureau.
Generally, do you have any plans to overhaul the IRR
program, so that I might be able to give something back to my
constituents in terms of general direction on this?
Mr. Echo Hawk. Mr. Chairman and Senator Murkowski, just a
few comments on the roads. Again, the stimulus money was very
important here. I think we received in total about $390 million
directly or by transfer from Department of Transportation. So
that has had enormous impact.
But the needs are great. And it has been, to my
understanding, as I recall, level funded for several years. So
more needs to be done in that regard. One of the major issues
is not only the level of funding for roads, but the formula
that is used to distribute what funds we have available. I was
hoping that we would get direction through consultation process
which has been occurring. We have been reaching out to tribal
leaders to get guidance.
But I think maybe the word that describes the situation is
stalemate. We have not received back from tribal leaders what
their desire is. Because there is division of opinion out
there. Recently I just directed my staff to move forward in
trying to craft what we think is the appropriate formula,
taking into account the equities and then to venture out there
in a consultation process with that formula, which again I
think you will see manifested division of opinion about whether
that is fair or not, depending on who you are and where you are
located.
But there have been increases in the amount of roads that
we have responsibility for without comparable increases in
funding. So there is great need.
Senator Murkowski. And I appreciate the need. You know that
we have struggled with just the inventory aspect of it. Again,
my experience with it has been, it has taken an act of
Congress, practically, to get the money that we know is out
there, and actually get that translated to the project. So I
would like to continue to work with you on this.
Ms. Roubideaux, I am pleased to see you here today. I
actually understood that you were supposed to be in Alaska and
attending our tribal health summit there. But this hearing
actually prevented that. So I get to see you, but Alaska
doesn't. So hopefully you will make a return visit. I know that
your presence there is appreciated, and your opportunities to
come and know and understand the situation a little bit better
is appreciated.
I wanted to ask you about the dental health therapist
program that we have. I think you have seen, we have had
opportunity here on this Committee to bring this issue up and
demonstrate the real substantive gains that we have made with
that program. Very briefly, can you tell me what kind of
support the IHS can give to innovative programs such as the
dental health therapy training program to ensure that this is
not just a short-term good idea that disappears and isn't
sustainable for the long term?
Dr. Roubideaux. Well, the Indian Health Service is
definitely interested in learning about best practices, how we
can better deliver care. And we are well aware of the good work
of the program in Alaska on this topic.
While we can't comment on issues that are sort of pending
in legislation or that sort of thing, I can tell you that I
know we want to do better in terms of how we deliver dental
health care. We know that there are innovative ideas. We have
in the past had a problem with shortages of being able to
recruit dentists into very rural areas. Our dental recruitment
numbers are a bit better this year and we are grateful for
that. But we still understand there is quite a bit of need.
And so I real think that your program is a great best
practice for us to look at, at how we can deliver better
quality dental care.
Senator Murkowski. We certainly agree, and would want to
see that continued and encouraged.
I have a couple more questions. One relates to the
inadequate funding for the village-built clinic lease. I would
hope that IHS would be willing to work with my staff on that
issue as it relates to the shortfalls. And then also the
staffing for the new Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta Regional Hospital
that is based in Bethel. I know that you are aware of that
issue. I would like to have a little more followup on what we
might anticipate with that Bethel staffing package in your
budget request.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Murkowski, thank you very much.
Let me ask a few questions and then I will submit
additional questions in writing to the panel. First, Dr.
Roubideaux, does the IHS have a plan on how to expand mental
health services dealing with the suicide issues? As you know,
there has been a severe shortage of mental health professionals
and mental health services in tribal communities. The suicide
prevention and mental health services are not prioritized in
the President's budget. So is there some IHS plan on how to
expand those services at this point?
Dr. Roubideaux. Yes, we believe the problem of suicide is a
high priority for us. We want to do everything we can to
address this, not just ourselves but with our other partners. I
recently met with the new Administrator of SAMHSA. We talked a
bit on that issue.
We have done a number of things to address that problem. We
recently hired a new director of our mental health program who
happens to have specific expertise in the area of suicide
prevention and treatment. So we think we are going to have some
gains there. The budget does include funding and current
services increases for mental health funding.
In addition, you are aware of our MSPI initiative, it is
the Meth and Suicide Prevention Initiative. That is up and
going. We have funded 129 projects in 21 States, $24 million
has already been sent out to programs who are looking at ways
to both prevent, treat and respond to suicide in Indian
communities. We do have a strategic plan that we are working on
and our behavioral health program is doing what it can to
respond to suicide emergencies.
I just heard last week, there was a suicide problem in a
southwestern State. We deployed some staff out there to work on
that with a local tribe. I can report that in that community,
the number of suicides has gone down. So we do know that if we
can get providers out there, and if we can address these
issues, that can help.
You will notice in the Fiscal Year 2011 budget request,
there was $4 million additional money for substance abuse
treatment in primary care settings. The intent of that is to
get more behavioral health providers. While that is for
substance abuse treatment, those providers can also help us
with the problem of suicides. Sometimes those are related.
So we still think it is a priority and we are doing
everything we can to address the problem.
The Chairman. I was thinking about this issue of schools.
One of my colleagues talked about new schools being built at
the cost of I believe $30 million to $50 million, or $20
million to $50 million. It relates also to health facilities. I
heard the other day of two facilities, two clinics that are
being built, and I think they were $70 million each. On the
Fort Berthold Reservation, we were owed a clinic, because the
hospital was submerged underwater decades ago, and the promise
was to build a new facility. It is being built now, and I
appropriated it under the Corps budget, because the Corps is
the one that inundated the previous hospital and made the
promise.
So I funded it, but it is a $20 million clinic. The Indian
Health Service proposed a $111 million clinic. The $20 million
clinic is going to be a wonderful addition to that Indian
Reservation. But $111 million was way, way out of bounds.
So the other day, when I heard about two more clinics being
built for $70 million, I am asking myself the question, just as
my colleagues did, how is it that a school comes in at a $50
million cost or a clinic comes in at a $70 million cost, we are
building a $20 million clinic on the Fort Berthold Reservation
right now for health care, and it is going to be a great
clinic. So I have asked the Government Accountability Office to
be looking into this question: how is all this money being
spent? How is it that the IHS suggested that the clinic that we
needed in New Town, North Dakota was $111 million? I said, are
you wacky? I guess I said that to no one.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. But was somebody wacky here, suggesting that
that is the amount of money we should spend?
So we are not doing that, we are spending $20 million. Well
enough. But the same question, it seems to me, needs to be
applied to what are the specs, how are we constructing these
things? And I am going to have the Government Accountability
Office look into both to understand what is driving this.
I think because we have a second panel and I want to allow
time for them, they have come a long way to be with us, I am
going to submit a series of written questions. Let me make one
point. In my opening statement, I describe the areas where we
are short and we need to do much, much, much better. I didn't
describe that there are some areas where I am pleased that this
Administration has reversed course from the previous
Administration and is funding certain things that I think will
be beneficial to the lives of Native Americans. So let me
simply say that added to what I said at the start of this
hearing, it should be noted there are some areas of
improvement.
But it is very important to point out what we need that we
are not getting in order to improve the lives of the First
Americans who received so many promises that have been broken
for so long.
I thank all three of you for your work on Indian issues. I
know that you are serious of purpose in addressing these things
and appreciate your being with us to be able to have a
discussion. I will submit questions in writing to the three of
you and thank you for your continuing efforts. Let me ask you
to be excused, then we will ask the three additional witnesses
to come forward. Thank you.
And the term wacky is a term of art, I think. I don't know
what it means, but perhaps another member of the panel does.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. We are going to call to the witness table Mr.
Jefferson Keel, the Honorable Jefferson Keel, President of the
National Congress of American Indians; the Honorable Patricia
Whitefoot, President of the National Indian Education
Association; and the Honorable Marty Shuravloff, Chairman of
the National American Indian Housing Council. I know that you
have traveled some ways to be with us. We appreciate your
willingness to come and participate. All of you have leadership
positions, national leadership positions in areas of
significant importance and interest. We very much appreciate
that.
Mr. Keel, those of us on the Committee have really
appreciated being able to work with you in your role as
President of the National Congress. We welcome you. Is Patricia
Whitefoot here? There you are. Patricia, thank you.
Mr. Keel, as I indicated to the previous panel, your entire
statement will be made a part of the record. We would
appreciate it if you would summarize for us. You may proceed
with your statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. JEFFERSON KEEL, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL CONGRESS
OF AMERICAN INDIANS
Mr. Keel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senators, members of the
Committee. Thank you for this opportunity to make our comments.
As you said, we will present our testimony in writing. I will
try to be brief.
We applaud the Administration's proposals to continue to
make investments in Indian health, tribal public safety,
environmental protection programs and self-determination
contract supports, costs and administrative cost grants. NCAI
has developed recommendations for many areas of the Federal
budget in concert with tribal leaders, agency budget advisory
councils and our sister organizations.
The areas for increased investments include a general
increase to tribal priority allocations, contract support costs
at BIA and IHS public safety, education, health, and natural
resources. Another area of critical importance to tribes is
public safety and justice. As Mr. Perrelli has already
testified, the President has requested significant changes to
the DOJ funding for Indian Country, as well as major increases.
NCAI supports these increases, which are necessary to
strengthen the law enforcement infrastructure in Indian
Country.
We request that the support provided for detention
facilities is at least maintained at the Fiscal Year 2010 level
of $10 million for Fiscal Year 2011. NCAI appreciates the
efforts of this Committee to develop legislation to foster the
responsible development of traditional and clean energy
resources on tribal lands. In addition to energy resources, the
health and maintenance of other natural resources, forest
lands, water, fisheries, wildlife and outdoor recreation is
vital to Native communities.
The Indian Affairs budget request for natural resources
programs proposes to provide recurring funding for several
longstanding tribal natural resources programs. Like the
Washington State timber-fish-wildlife program, the Circle of
Flight, Lake Roosevelt Management and Upper Columbia United
Tribes, which in prior years' budget requests were treated as
earmarks. NCAI supports the continued funding of these
returning programs as opposed to earmarks. NCAI appreciates the
$30 million in EPA for multimedia tribal implementation grants
to support on the ground implementation of environmental
protection on tribal lands, as well as the increase for EPA
general assistance.
We encourage this Committee to help boost levels of many of
the other natural resource programs laid out in our written
budget testimony and comprehensive budget document.
NCAI and tribal leaders are very alarmed at the proposed
decrease to the Native American Housing Block Grant program in
HUD. The proposed level would cut the Housing Block Grant
program by 17 percent from Fiscal Year 2010 enacted level. The
justification for this action is that the program is operating
at a high volume due to Recovery Act funding. However, the ARRA
funding was intended to be over and above regular
appropriations.
The proposed reduction to the formula level also comes at
the same time that the President has requested a 3-year freeze
in domestic spending. This proposed reduction would impact
smaller and poorer tribes in 2011. As Indian Country works
toward putting our citizens back to work the proposed cut would
adversely affect the construction industry, which is one of the
more stable industries, with substantial employment in Indian
Country. We urge this Committee to work toward restoring the
cut proposed for the Housing Block Grant funding for Fiscal
Year 2011.
Indian Country is a critical player as the Nation considers
ways to promote jobs and work toward economic recovery. When
tribes have the necessary tools to exercise their inherent
right of self-government, the results include strides toward
improving the health, social and economic well-being of Indian
Country, non-Native citizens residing on reservations, and off-
reservation residents of neighboring communities. We look
forward to working with you to ensure that the needs of Indian
Country are addressed in the Fiscal Year 2011 appropriations
process.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Keel follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jefferson Keel, President, National Congress
of American Indians
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Mr. Keel, thank you very much. We appreciate
your being here.
Finally, the Honorable Patricia Whitefoot, the President of
the National Indian Education Association. Ms. Whitefoot, you
may proceed.
STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICIA WHITEFOOT, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL
INDIAN EDUCATION ASSOCIATION
Ms. Whitefoot. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Chairman
Dorgan, members of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, I am
honored to have this opportunity to submit testimony on behalf
of the National Indian Education Association with regard to
President Obama's Fiscal Year 2011 budget request.
In 1969, the Senate Kennedy Report documented the
complexities in Indian education in both the public and Bureau
of Indian Education school systems. This landmark report
validated the current concerns Indian parents and tribal
leaders have voiced since the introduction of formal education
for our children. With the founding of the National Indian
Education Association in 1970, Indian people have experienced
significant progress in education of their children.
For example, Indian communities have realized greater
participation in and control of programs and schools than ever
before. The enactment of the Indian Education Act of 1972
allowed funding for culturally related academic programs for
Native students in public schools, and the Tribal College Act
established tribal colleges and universities that promote
greater access to culturally relevant higher education.
The passage of the Native American Language Act of 1992 and
more recently, the passage of the Esther Martinez Language
Immersion and Restoration Act, and many other programs and
policies, have helped to improve curricula, teacher education
and promote the educational and culturally related academic
needs of Native students.
Mr. Chairman, on behalf of NIEA's national constituency of
students, parents, educators, elders, tribal leaders and Native
Hawaiians, I want to thank you and the Committee for your
continued support to help bring about these important changes.
While we have realized important progress in Native education
over the past four decades, there is much more to be
accomplished. Far too many of our students continue to
experience abject failure.
In this regard, a newly released study by the Civil Rights
Project at the UCLA Graduate of Education and Information
Studies found that less than 50 percent of American Indian and
Alaska Native students in 12 States graduate from high school.
In terms of correcting historical funding inequities, NIEA in
its advocacy role strives to ensure that the Federal Government
upholds its responsibility for the education of Native students
to the provision of direct educational services. It is
imperative that the Federal Government recognize and support
the cultural, social and linguistic needs of our students to
guarantee the continuity of Native communities.
NIEA is very hopeful that educating Native students will be
eligible to receive funding to participate in a number of
programs proposed in President Barack Obama's Fiscal Year 2011
budget, including the early childhood education programs,
Promise Neighborhoods and ``successful models for turning
around low-achieving schools.''
In particular, NIEA supports the concept of the Promise
Neighborhood program, that it aims to improve academic
achievement, college matriculation rates and life outcomes in
high poverty areas, by providing a network of support services
in an entire neighborhood from birth to college. NIEA would
like to see Promise Neighborhoods established in Indian
Country.
In reaffirming sovereignty, NIEA believes that with
president Obama's pledge to affirming tribal sovereignty
through stronger funding for educational programs, we will
begin to see positive changes in Native students' educational
attainment. We appreciate the budgetary gains of the past year,
however, NIEA believes there is continuing need for additional
resources to reverse budget limitations of the past for Native
education programs. NIEA is very hopeful that schools educating
Native students will receive stronger support and funding for
Native language and cultural curriculum, increased funding for
Head Start programs, funding for Indian school construction and
repairs, and increased funding for tribal colleges' operations
and construction as stated in President Obama's blueprint for
strengthening tribal communities.
In consideration of the economic downturn and constrained
domestic budget, NIEA requests a modest 5 percent increase for
Fiscal Year 2011 over the Fiscal Year 2010 enacted levels of
$194,912 million for a total of $204.65 million for ESEA Title
VII funding. This amount would include a 5 percent increase in
funding for the following programs within Title VII: Indian
education, Alaska Native education equity, and education for
Native Hawaiians. President Obama's 2011 budget request of
Fiscal Year 2010 enacted level of $194.912 million, NIEA
appreciates the Congress provided an increase in Fiscal Year
2010 of $5 million over Fiscal Year 2009 enacted level for
Title VII.
Mr. Chairman, I also would like to just acknowledge Impact
Aid under Title VIII under ESEA to also request a 5 percent
increase over the Fiscal Year 2010 enacted level for Impact
Aid.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Whitefoot follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Patricia Whitefoot, President, National
Indian Education Association
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Ms. Whitefoot, thank you very much for your
testimony. Finally, we will hear from Mr. Marty Shuravloff, the
Chairman of the National American Indian Housing Council. Mr.
Shuravloff, thank you.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARTY SHURAVLOFF, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL AMERICAN
INDIAN HOUSING COUNCIL
Mr. Shuravloff. Thank you, Chairman Dorgan and members of
the Committee. I would like to thank you for having me here
this afternoon to discuss President Obama's Fiscal Year 2011
budget request.
As background, NAIHC, for 36 years, has represented their
membership of almost 460 tribes across the Country. First,
NAIHC would like to thank Congress for its increased investment
in Indian housing for Fiscal Year 2010. The American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act, ARRA, provided nearly $510 million for
the Indian Housing Block Grant program. This additional
investment in Indian Country supports hundreds of jobs, but
more importantly, has allowed some tribes to start on new
construction projects they could not have otherwise afforded
with the Indian Housing Block Grant allocation.
Further, they have complied with the mandate to obligate
the funds in an expedient manner, thus helping to stimulate
tribal and the national economies. In addition to the ARRA
funding, Congress appropriated $700 million for the Indian
Housing Block Grant in Fiscal Year 2010, the first significant
increase for the program since it began, reversing a decade of
funding levels that neither kept pace with inflation nor
addressed the acute housing needs in Native communities.
It is important to remember that the Indian Housing Block
Grant is the single largest source of funding for Native
housing. Supporting new housing development, acquisition,
rehabilitation and other housing services is important for
tribal communities. On February 1st, 2010, President Obama
submitted to Congress a $3.8 trillion budget request which
proposes a 3-year freeze on non-defense discretionary spending.
This category includes the bulk of programs and services for
tribal communities, and in particular, Indian housing programs.
The budget request proposes $572.2 million for the Indian
Housing Block Grant, a decrease of $120 million, down 18
percent from the Fiscal Year 2010 funding level. At the same
time, HUD's overall budget was reduced by only 5 percent.
Should the Congress accept the President's budget proposal,
it would be the lowest single year funding level for the Native
American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act since it
was enacted in 1996. To put this into proper context, Congress
appropriate $600 million in Fiscal Year 1998, 12 years ago, $20
million more than the President's budget request for Fiscal
Year 2011.
While the NAIHC and its members are aware of and appreciate
the large investments made in Indian housing, we are
disappointed that the current request fails to continue the
positive budget trajectory of recent years. Therefore, the
NAIHC strongly urges Congress to not only appropriate fund
above the President's budget request, but to fund the Indian
Housing Block Grant at $875 million, due to the increase in
costs for housing development, energy efficiency initiatives
and other inflationary factors.
Since the President's budget request has been released,
many of our members have expressed to us their deep concern.
They believe this budget impacts not only housing but also the
very hope for self-sustaining economies in Indian Country.
Reduced funding would result in the loss of jobs for our
people, deterioration of existing housing units and the
curtailment of many housing projects that are currently under
development.
The budget request also proposes an agency-wide
transformation initiative fund (TIF) with up to 1 percent of
HUD's total budget, drawing funds away from essential housing
programs, including $5.8 million from the Indian Housing Block
Grant account to continue the ongoing comprehensive study of
housing needs in Indian Country and Native communities in
Alaska and Hawaii.
While the NAIHC membership believe that TIF may have merit,
we do not believe that transferring nearly $6 million from the
block grant account to conduct a study on housing needs is a
wise or even defensible use of Federal taxpayer funds. More
importantly, the $6 million also includes funding that has
historically been appropriated to NAIHC for training and
technical assistance.
Through resolutions, the NAIHC membership has repeatedly
taken the position that a portion of the Indian Housing Block
Grant allocation should be provided to NAIHC for training and
technical assistance, a reflection of their confidence in NAIHC
and the services we provide.
In closing, while we have specific concerns with funding
levels, NAIHC supports the proposal to enhance coordination
between HUD offices that serve tribal communities. We also
support the proposal to improve collaboration with other
Federal agencies. NAIHC has proposed the creation of a Native
American housing task force to support these efforts.
This concludes my statement. Thank you again for having me
here today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shuravloff follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Marty Shuravloff, Chairman, National
American Indian Housing Council
Introduction
Good afternoon Chairman Dorgan, Vice Chairman Barrasso, and
distinguished members of the Committee on Indian Affairs. I am Marty
Shuravloff and I am the Chairman of the National American Indian
Housing Council (``NAIHC''), the national tribal organization dedicated
to advancing housing, physical infrastructure and economic development
in tribal communities in the United States. I am an enrolled member of
the Leisnoi Village, Kodiak Island, Alaska, and serve my community as
the Executive Director of the Kodiak Island Housing Authority.
I want to thank the Committee for the invitation to appear before
you this afternoon to discuss President Obama's FY 2011 budget request.
Before discussing the tribal programs and initiatives proposed in
the budget request, I want to thank you, Chairman Dorgan, for your many
years of dedication and commitment to the welfare of Indian people and
the leadership you have shown, both as a member and now the Chairman of
this important Committee.
Background on the National American Indian Housing Council
The NAIHC was founded in 1974 and for 36 years has served its
members by providing valuable training and technical assistance,
working with key Federal agencies, and providing information to the
Congress on the many challenges tribal communities face when it comes
to housing, infrastructure, and community development. The membership
of NAIHC is expansive and consists of approximately 270 tribal housing
entities, representing almost 460 tribes across the United States.
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and the FY 2010 Budget for
Indian Housing
First, NAIHC would like to thank Congress for its increased
investment in Indian housing for FY 2010. The American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (AARA) provided nearly $510 million for the Indian
Housing Block Grant (IHBG) program. This additional investment in
Indian Country supports hundreds of jobs, but more importantly, has
allowed some tribes to start on new construction projects they could
not have otherwise afforded with their IHBG allocation. Further, they
have complied with the mandate to obligate the funds in an expedient
manner, thus helping to stimulate tribal and the national economies.
In addition to the ARRA funding, Congress appropriated $700 million
for the IHBG in FY 2010, the first significant increase for the program
since it began--reversing a decade of funding levels that neither kept
pace with inflation nor addressed the acute housing needs in Native
communities.
It is important to remember that the IHBG is the single largest
source of funding for Native housing, supporting new housing
development, acquisition, rehabilitation, and other housing services
important for tribal communities.
The President's FY 2011 Budget Request for the Indian Housing Block
Grant
On February 1, 2010, President Obama submitted to Congress a $3.8
trillion budget request, which proposes a 3-year freeze on non-defense,
domestic discretionary spending. This category includes the bulk of
programs and services for tribal communities, in particular Indian
housing programs.
The budget request proposes $572.2 million for the IHBG, a decrease
of $120 million (-17 percent) from the FY 2010 funding level. At the
same time, HUD's overall budget was reduced by only 5 percent. Should
the Congress accept the President's budget proposal, it would be the
lowest, single-year funding level for the Native American Housing
Assistance and Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA) since it was enacted in
1996. To put this in proper context, funding appropriated by Congress
in FY 1998--twelve years ago--was $20 million more than the President's
budget request for FY 2011.
While the NAIHC and its members are aware of and appreciate the
large investments made in Indian housing, we are disappointed that the
current request fails to continue the positive budget trajectory of
recent years.
Therefore, the NAIHC strongly urges Congress to not only
appropriate funds above the President's budget request, but to fund the
IHBG at $875 million due to the increasing costs for housing
development, energy efficiency initiatives, and other inflationary
factors.
Since the President's budget request has been released, many of our
members have expressed to us their deep concern. They believe this
budget impacts not only housing, but also the very hope for self-
sustaining economies in Indian Country. Reduced funding would result in
the loss of jobs for our people, the deterioration of existing housing
units, and the curtailment of many housing projects that are currently
under development.
Other Indian Housing and Related Programs
The Title VI and Section 184 Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Programs
The budget request includes $2 million for the Title VI Loan
Guarantee program and $9 million for the Section 184 program. The Title
VI program is important because it provides a 95 percent loan guarantee
on loans made by private lenders, which is an incentive for those
lenders to get involved in the development of much needed housing in
tribal areas. Section 184 is specifically geared towards facilitating
home loans in Indian Country. We request that these programs continue
to be funded at their current levels.
Indian Community Development Block Grant
The budget request includes $64 million for the Indian Community
Development Block Grant, which is available to Federally recognized
tribes and Alaska Native villages on a competitive basis. This funding
may be used for community facilities and economic development, and is
an important source of funding for housing rehabilitation and the
development of infrastructure that is vital for Native communities.
BIA-HIP Program and Veterans Affairs Native American Housing Loan
Program
The budget request proposes $12 million for the BIA's Housing
Improvement Program, but zeroes out the Department of Veterans Affairs
Native American housing loan program, which provides direct loans to
Indian veterans who are members of Federally-recognized tribes, for the
purchase, construction, refinancing, or improvement of homes located on
Federal trust lands. This is a concern to NAIHC, because as this
Committee is well aware, a disproportionately large number Native
people serve in the armed forces as compared to rest of the American
population. It is our duty to ensure that our Native American veterans,
especially those who have been wounded or disabled in combat, are
provided decent, safe, and sanitary housing.
Native Hawaiian Housing
Low-income Native Hawaiian families continue to face tremendous
challenges, similar to those that tribal members face in the rest of
the United States. The President's funding request of $10 million for
the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant is appreciated, but the budget
includes no funding for the Section 184A program in Hawaii. While it
has taken some time to get this program started--because lenders are
not familiar with 184--providing no funding would be a step backward
for Native Hawaiian families working toward homeownership. We urge
Congress to consider this before agreeing to the Administration's
proposal to eliminate funding for the program.
The Proposed Transformation Initiative and Use of Indian Housing Block
Grant Funds
The budget request also proposes an agency-wide Transformation
Initiative Fund (TIF) with up to 1 percent of HUD's total budget
drawing funds away from essential housing programs, including $5.8
million from the IHBG account, ``to continue the on-going comprehensive
study of housing needs in Indian Country and native communities in
Alaska and Hawaii.''
While the NAIHC membership believes the TI may have merit, we do
not believe that transferring nearly $6 million from the IHBG account
to conduct a study on housing needs is a wise or even defensible use of
Federal taxpayer funds. More importantly, the $6 million also includes
funding that has historically been appropriated to NAIHC for training
and technical assistance. Through resolutions, the NAIHC membership has
repeatedly taken the position that a portion of the IHBG allocation
should be provided to NAIHC for training and technical assistance--a
reflection of their confidence in NAIHC and the services we provide.
Conclusion
In closing, while we have specific concerns with funding levels,
NAIHC supports the proposal in the budget request to enhance
coordination between HUD's Office of Native American Programs (ONAP)
and other offices within HUD that serve tribal communities. We also
support the proposal for ONAP to improve its collaboration with other
Federal agencies including the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Department
of Agriculture, the Indian Health Service, and the Environmental
Protection Agency. NAIHC has proposed the creation of a Native American
Housing Task Force to support these efforts.
This concludes my prepared statement. Thank you again for this
opportunity, and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
The Chairman. Thank you very much for being with us today.
Senator Franken?
Senator Franken. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for
your testimony.
Mr. Keel, in your written testimony you highlight the $1.2
million at DOJ for redesign and development of data collection
programs for Indian Country. In your opinion, what would be the
best use of those funds?
Mr. Keel. Senator, there is just a tremendous need to
validate a lot of the data that has already been provided. We
have a number of facilities that could utilize that
information. I think that I would like to get back to you with
an accurate answer on that. Because it is an important area
that we really need to touch on.
Senator Franken. In Minnesota, there is something called
the I Care program, which was the brain child of Bill Blake, a
Native American Minneapolis cop. And his daughter had sort of
prevailed upon him to develop this. Not long later, she was
shot and killed. The idea was for tribes to, in Minnesota and
Wisconsin, to share data on crime. Because very often, it
isn't.
Because Bill was a beloved guy and the tribes have agreed
to do this, I think it s a great thing. Very often, there will
be criminals who go from one reservation to another, and then
come to Minneapolis or St. Paul.
Have you seen programs like this around the Country? How
have they addressed the critical problem of poor crime
statistics that we have?
Mr. Keel. Senator, I have seen some examples of exactly
what you are talking about. A number of youth from different
parts of the Country who become transient, they do leave for
whatever reason one area and go to another. Sometimes it is
because they visit relatives or they have friends or relatives
in different parts of the Country.
The idea that we need to share data is also not just in
terms of detention facilities, but it has to do with mental
health issues, the other treatment issues that we need to
provide for our youth who are troubled, who are at risk in a
number of ways, whether it be suicide, mental health issues,
drug use. There is a number of factors that include gang
affiliation and the development of these associations. And we
talk about validating some of this data, sometimes there is
duplicate numbers. That is what I would like to get back to you
with a detailed accounting of this.
Senator Franken. Thank you.
Ms. Whitefoot, in your written testimony you talk about the
need to restore funding for the Johnson O'Malley program. At
the Leech Lake Reservation in Minnesota, this program helps
provide students who are in poverty with school supplies, with
uniforms for after school activities, sports, for tutoring
services, et cetera. In other words, it gives a poor student
access to kind of basic things that all students in this
Country need.
Since 2006, the amounts for the Johnson O'Malley program
has gone from $24 million down to about $21 million. What
difference could this $3 million make, in your mind?
Ms. Whitefoot. We have to remember that Johnson O'Malley
funding was frozen several years ago, and it has not taken into
account the number of increases that we have had in Native
student enrollment. When it was frozen at that time, it was
frozen based on the number of students that existed at that
time. What has happened during that time, for instance, in our
public schools, we have had a significant increase in Native
student enrollment. So we need to take a look at that increased
enrollment of Native students.
But also in terms of the needs that exist out there, just
in the public school district where I come from, we have very
limited funding, both in the Title VII and Johnson O'Malley
program. When these types of supplemental funds are decreased,
you have very little to be able to access for resources. What
ends up happening with these particular programs is, we have to
go out and locate other additional resources, such as have been
discussed here, whether that be under SAMHSA, I have heard
SAMHSA mentioned, Health and Human Services, or local
resources. So there is a tremendous need for Johnson O'Malley
to be made available, but also the funds to be restored.
Senator Franken. I know I am out of my time, but the number
one determinant of whether a kid graduates from high school is
that he or she identify with their school. If they are doing
after school programs, and some of these public schools have
fees for playing sports, fees for being in the band. This is so
important, in my mind. Thank you all for your testimony. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Franken, thank you very much.
Senator Murkowski?
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Keel, I appreciate your mentioning, on behalf of NCAI,
the concern about the cuts to the housing block grants. We have
had an opportunity to discuss this issue a couple of times in
my office, meeting with Alaskans, and then at the summit a
couple of days ago. I find it so troubling to know that are
kind of robbing Peter to pay Paul, for instance, taking money
from the block grant to provide for housing study. Well, I
don't know what is like specifically in other reservations, but
I am told that in our State, we have a 13,000 unit backlog for
homes. And we need to weatherize an additional 27,000 homes. It
seems to me that if we can specify numbers like that, we don't
really need a study to tell us that we have an issue with
housing for our Alaskan Natives and for American Indians. So we
shouldn't be taking the money out of the block grant to tell us
what we already know. So this is an issue that, again, I share
the concerns, we need to figure out how we deal with it.
Patricia, it is good to see you here. I think it is very
important and appropriate that you be here to speak to the
impact of the President's budget on Indian education. It would
be nice to have someone from the Administration, whether it is
the Secretary, Secretary Duncan or Sebelius, speaking to this
issue, because I think it is so important that we understand
very clearly what the priorities are when it comes to providing
educational opportunities for our Indian children.
Senator Franken has mentioned the Johnson O'Malley funds.
In addition to the Johnson O'Malley funds, you cite in your
testimony, Ms. Whitefoot, the BIE school facilities, the Impact
Aid, the tribally controlled colleges, the Title VII Indian
Education. I have to ask the question, do you think that the
President and the Administration have proposed a budget that
will in fact meet the needs of children in Indian Country?
Ms. Whitefoot. Having been involved with Indian education
for about 35 years, and again, I just want to stress the fact
that the funding that we receive at the community level is
very, very minimal, the local education and the school
districts where we work, and I do want to repeat again that
oftentimes what I end up doing is I end up going after
additional resources just to be able to address some of the
needs that we have in our school districts and in our
communities. I think there is a need for more to be done in
terms of the work that we do in Indian education.
I manage the Head Start programs for my tribe, the Johnson
O'Malley programs, the Title VII. Just given all of the
information that you have heard here today on health-related
issues, the youth suicide, the substance abuse related issues,
the homelessness that we experience in our school districts, we
are talking about the need to address Native student education
and their overall well-being in the schools from preschool to
higher education. I have the opportunity to be able to teach
college courses for Head Start professionals, to help them
transition into a career development type program. When you
have Head Start programs in your community, those are low-
income communities. Then you are bringing in parents to work in
Head Start, the kind of funding that Head Start needs isn't
being realized.
So just overall, the funding isn't adequate at all. I would
like to see doubling of all our Indian education budgets that
we have. If we really wanted to get down to it, I would love to
have you come up to my community, or any community, and talk
about some of these issues. It is a very comprehensive need
that we have.
Senator Murkowski. You are a terrific advocate. I
appreciate that.
Mr. Keel, I want to ask you a question about the energy.
There are, within the Department of Interior and Department of
Energy, Indian energy offices. The President has requested a 72
percent decrease for the Indian energy office at the Department
of Energy. This is something that the Chairman has raised
repeatedly, in terms of economic development, there are so many
opportunities, if we could just gain access to those energy
resources.
What impact do you think this will have on the development
of energy on tribal lands? Anything more in your mind that
needs to be done? If you could just speak specifically to that.
Mr. Keel. Well, economic development, you are exactly
right, Senator, and thank you for that question. The energy
resources, the natural resources that are contained in many
Indian lands are there that need to be developed and provide an
opportunity for Indian Country to develop those. I think the
impact of reducing the assistance or the opportunity for tribal
leaders to access funds, either for technical assistance or for
Indian financing, to attract those developers to come and
assist in getting those resources there out of the ground is
just tremendous. I think it will have a negative impact across
the board.
If you look at, for instance, North Dakota, the Three
Affiliated Tribes are now at the point of being able to develop
some oil and gas that is contained on their lands. That wasn't
possible years ago. I think around the country there are tribes
that are poised to develop those resources. But they need
assistance. And they just simply don't have the funding to
develop those resources. Any cuts in the Federal assistance
will severely affect them.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Murkowski, thank you very much.
With respect to the Three Affiliated Tribes and energy
development, let me mention that sometimes it is not money.
With the case of the Three Affiliated Tribes, we had an area
right in the middle of the hottest oil clay in America, the
U.S. Geological Survey said there is up to 4.3 billion barrels
of oil that is recoverable using today's technology. So if you
took a look at a map of where oil was being drilled as a result
of that activity, just the hottest activity in the United
States, the biggest assessment of recoverable oil in the
history of the lower 48 States, by the way.
So take a look at a map and see what was happening, here is
the Indian reservation, they are drilling wells north of it,
drilling wells west of it, drilling wells south of it, but
almost no activity on the reservation. So I went to the
Interior Secretary and said, look, you have a 49 step process
in order for somebody to get a drilling permit. You have four
separate agencies inside the Interior Department that have to
be involved in the approval process. And it just doesn't work.
You can't get anything approved.
I got them to do a one stop shop on the reservation with
the four agencies and streamline the approval process. That was
about a year, maybe 15 months ago. Now we have 17 drilling rigs
drilling right now for oil. We have 39 holes already dug and
oil is pumping from all 39. So a substantial amount of
activity. And it wasn't a requirement to appropriate more
money. It was just a requirement to stop the nonsense about 45
steps and four separate agencies. If you are on State land or
private land, you get a drilling permit in North Dakota just
like that, in a matter of a couple of days. But it would take
many, many, many months on the reservation.
We have fixed that now, not completely, but we have fixed
it sufficiently so there is a lot of activity on that
reservation. But there is powerful opportunity to develop
energy resources all over the Country on Indian reservations in
a wide range of areas. We have to find ways to unlock that.
In fact, in my State, while a lot of people are now
experiencing the benefits of oil development, I was told of a
person in North Dakota who sent a $200,000 check back to the
oil company, saying, well, this must be a mistake, and the oil
company said, no, no, you are going to get those regularly, it
is not a mistake at all. An oil well was on their land and it
was a big, pumping well. If ever in North Dakota there was an
area that needed that, it was the area with the highest
unemployment, and the highest level of poverty and that was on
the Indian reservation. That was the area that wasn't getting
the opportunity.
So that is a long way of saying that the point isn't always
more money. The point is, a little more sanity in some of these
requirements and rules and regulations.
Let me just quickly ask, as we close this hearing, Mr.
Shuravloff, you and I talked earlier this week about this. But
if the $120 million is taken out of the Housing Block Grant,
what are the consequences for the tribes?
Mr. Shuravloff. Chairman Dorgan, of course one of the
things is, we are not going to see the money to build like we
would like to build. But I think it defeats the whole purpose
of ARRA. When we looked at it, it was to create jobs. As we
looked at reduced funding of $120 million, in the long term
over the next 3 years, we are going to see the exact opposite
effect. We are going to be laying more people off than we would
have probably to begin with had we been able to stay with some
level funding.
I think that it is just a big step backward for us to have
to look at that kind of budget reduction and not just the
reduced amount of construction we are going to be looking at,
but the reduction of jobs in the future.
The Chairman. We have a hearing room full of, not
exclusively, but largely old codgers, I would call them. This
is not a hearing room of high school kids, right? And if it
were a hearing room full of high school kids, I would ask the
question, but let me ask it of a hearing room full of older
people. How many in this room have been benefited in their
lives by the Johnson O'Malley program? Let's see you raise your
hand.
[Show of hands.]
The Chairman. I thought so. And I think were this a group
of high school students, I think from reservations, nearly
everyone would have raised their hands. Ms. Whitefoot, you
talked about the Johnson O'Malley program. I just wish that
instead of talking about the Johnson O'Malley program, which is
kind of an amorphous title, we talk about that, it doesn't mean
much to anybody. But if we had kids sitting in these rows here
talking about the investment it made in their life and what it
meant to them to kind of get back on track and engaged in
activities that made a difference in their life, people would
have an entirely different view of Johnson O'Malley, wouldn't
they?
Ms. Whitefoot. I agree with you. As a matter of fact, I was
with our high school students back in Washington State just the
day before I traveled here. And I did ask them that question.
So they did respond, because they were getting ready to write a
letter to you about the benefits of Indian education. It has,
for our senior students, it is helping to provide for their
caps and gowns. They are getting ready for graduation. It also
helps provide supplies for their senior projects that they have
to do. It also provides for transportation, because they have
gotten to travel to the University of Washington. Also, they
have been able to visit the Portland Museum and Zoo. They have
also been to learn more about their heritage and their culture
on the Columbia River Basin. We are in south central Washington
State, and we traveled to Portland.
So they got to learn more about their history. So when I am
traveling with students, I am also talking about their history
and their identity. I would like to just share also, we have
had some leaders who have, I think, helped to blaze the trails
for us.
I want to take a minute to introduce our interim executive
director, if that all right with you, Chairman Dorgan. I would
like to introduce and have him stand. Dr. Gerald Gipp, who has
been one of those trail blazers for Indian education. Would you
please stand, Dr. Gipp?
The Chairman. Our Committee is well aware of Dr. Gipp.
Thank you for being here.
Ms. Whitefoot. I just wanted to acknowledge him that he is
here in the audience as the interim director for the National
Indian Education Association and that trail blazer for our
Native youth.
The Chairman. He does excellent work.
I am going to ask Mr. Keel one question. But let me just
mention to you, I spoke, some long while ago, at an Indian
college graduation ceremony. I asked in the gymnasium as they
were all putting on robes and so on, I said, who's the oldest
college graduate here at the tribal college? They pointed to
this woman.
So I went over to her, and she was putting on this gown
very proudly, I visited with her a bit. Then I asked somebody
else about her and they told me her story, that she had been a
custodian at the college, a single mother, I think she had four
children. I believe her husband had left her. So she was a
single mother, trying to make ends meet, didn't have very much.
Worked as a custodian, cleaning the bathrooms and the hallways
in the college.
But on the day I showed up, she was a college graduate.
Because she figured working those hallways and bathrooms and so
on, she figured at some point, you know what, I have to do more
than clean this place, I have to graduate from this place. The
day that she graduated, she not only had a cap and gown on, she
had a smile that she had earned with a lot of hard work that
nobody could ever take from her.
She had invested in herself, and it was only possible
because you had a tribal college. Which meant that for her, a
single mother with children, she had an extended family where
she could get child care that she couldn't otherwise afford.
She had opportunities in that tribal college setting to get an
education where she couldn't have done it previously.
So it described for me how incredibly important education
is at every level, and especially the tribal college, which
offers significant opportunities. It has always been a priority
for me, and I have seen first-hand how great an investment it
is in the lives of people, some of whom have felt their life is
hopeless, but it was not.
Mr. Keel, in the context of that, with very high
unemployment and so on, in your testimony you talk about a
number of programs for economic and energy development and so
on. Has the National Congress any kind of a ranking about which
programs that you think have priority, which are the more
important versus the less important?
Mr. Keel. Thank you, Senator. We have assembled a number of
those, but we have not ranked those by order. One of the keys
to economic development, as you mentioned earlier, is to remove
a lot of the bureaucratic delays, for instance, of putting land
into trust. Land is extremely important for tribes to engage in
economic development or develop resources. The delays that they
experience at the Department of Interior and other agencies is
just horrendous. And it needs to be fixed.
The other area would be health, energy development,
housing. All of those things are important, and we have not
rank ordered those, because they are all important and they are
all connected in Indian Country.
The Chairman. Let me as I close say thanks to Senator
Franken. We have a Committee that all of whom work very hard
and care very deeply about these issues. Senator Franken has
been new to the Committee in this Congress, but I am really
impressed with his attention and his devotion to trying to work
on these Indian issues. Senator Franken, we will close this
hearing, you and me. It has been 2 hours that I think has been
very valuable and very important. I appreciate the witnesses
who have traveled some long distances to be with us. These
discussions will continue and the work will go on. From now we
will talk about budgets and appropriations.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:10 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Prepared Statement of David M. Gipp, President, United Tribes Technical
College
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
Prepared Statement of Lloyd B. Miller, Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse,
Endreson & Perry, LLP on behalf of the National Tribal Contract
Support Cost Coalition
This testimony is submitted jointly on behalf of the National
Tribal Contract Support Cost Coalition, comprised of the Shoshone
Bannock Tribes of Idaho, the Cherokee Nation and Choctaw Nation of
Oklahoma, the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of Nevada and Idaho, the Riverside
San Bernardino County Indian Health Consortium of California, the
Pueblo of Zuni of New Mexico, the Spirit Lake Nation of North Dakota,
the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes and Chippewa Cree Tribe of
Montana, the Forest County Potawatomi Tribe of Wisconsin, the Little
River Band of Ottawa Indians of Michigan, and the Copper River Native
Association, Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, Arctic Slope
Native Association, Kodiak Area Native Association, and Yukon-Kuskokwim
Health Corporation of Alaska.
As this Committee is aware, contract support costs represent the
fixed costs which Tribes and tribal organizations must incur when they
carry out self-determination contracts and self-governance compacts
with either the Bureau of Indian Affairs or the Indian Health Service.
Contract support costs cover such federally-mandated costs as annual
independent audits, but also other necessary costs including liability
and property insurance, accounting costs and the like. The majority of
contract support costs are set by an indirect cost rate that is
established by either the National Business Center within the
Department of the Interior or the Division of Cost Allocation within
the Department of Health and Human Services, and the remainder of those
costs are set directly by the BIA and IHS.
As this Committee is also aware from its extensive work over three
decades in amending the Indian Self-Determination Act, when the BIA or
IHS underfund fixed tribal contract support costs, the tribal
contractors are left with no choice but to leave program positions
unfilled to make up for the difference. Contract support cost
underpayments thus cost jobs.
By contrast, restoring contract support cost payments that are due
under contracts and compacts permits Tribes and tribal organizations
carrying out BIA and IHS programs to restore jobs. This is why Tribes
and tribal organizations have often related to Congress that, despite
its somewhat oblique name, the ``contract support cost'' issue is a
jobs issue. Indeed, at even a high estimate of $100,000 per full-time
equivalent employee, every $10 million increase in contract support
cost payments produces 100 additional jobs (and even more jobs under
contracts with IHS, where healthcare services lead to additional
revenues from Medicare, Medicaid and other third-party payers).
For the same reason, the contract support cost issue is a health,
law enforcement, lands and government services issue. With each job
lost due to a contract support cost underpayment a Tribe loses a police
officer or dispatcher, a doctor or nurse practitioner, a realty
specialist, an education counselor, or a child welfare worker.
Strikingly, parallel programs that remain under IHS or BIA
administration do not suffer such impacts. Thus the CSC shortfall
penalizes Tribes that exercise their self-governance and self-
determination rights. It also disproportionately balances budgetary
constraints on the backs of tribal contractors. If budget cuts or
limited increases are to occur, equity dictates that such actions occur
in portions of the budget that are shouldered equally by the agencies
and the contracting Tribes.
These are the policy reasons supporting full funding of contract
support costs. But the legal reasons are even more compelling. The
Indian Self-Determination Act mandates that full contract support costs
shall be added to every contract. This mandate was added to the statute
in 1988 and reinforced in 1994 by this Committee precisely to end once
and for all the hardship visited upon tribal contractors struggling to
maintain program levels when contract support costs are not fully paid.
Wisely, this Committee mandated in Section 106(c) that each agency
provide Congress with a mid-year report on contract support cost
funding requirements, so that supplemental appropriations could be made
before the year concluded in order to fully meet the government's
obligation. It is a stunning criticism of the agencies that they have
never provided a mid-year accounting of current year CSC shortfalls,
and that they have never requested supplemental appropriations to
address current year shortfalls. (Instead, both agencies have adopted a
practice of making their shortfall reports one year late, long after
Congress can do anything about it through the supplemental
appropriations process.) The United States Supreme Court in the 2005
Cherokee Nation case held that the contract support cost payment
obligation is a legal contractual right that must be honored just like
any other government contractor's right. Until the appropriations
process matches this legal responsibility, litigation will
unfortunately continue.
Not only do policy and legal reasons support fully funding contract
support costs; good sense supports fully funding those costs. This is
because no initiative in Indian Affairs has been more successful both
in promoting local self-determination and in improving and expanding
the quality and quantity of federal programs in Indian country than has
the self-determination contracting/compacting process.
In May 2009 IHS projected an approximate $150 million shortfall in
FY 2011 contract support cost requirements, absent a further increase.
A similar projection undertaken recently for the Bureau of Indian
Affairs foresees a contract support cost shortfall of $68 million.
These are the sums which should be appropriated in FY 2011 to finally
meet the government's contract support cost obligations in full. While
the President's proposed Budget increases for IHS and BIA are a
significant step in the right direction ($45.5 million and $21.5
million, respectively), these sums are plainly insufficient to meet the
current requirement and will, instead, leave unfunded CSC shortfalls of
$105 million for IHS and $46.5 million for the BIA.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Although the BIA's recent Budget justification reports that the
President's contract support cost increase will permit the agency to
meet over 90 percent of its CSC funding requirements, we have learned
that this calculation was based on the BIA's funding requirements in
2008 (which at the time that the Budget was prepared was the only
reported number available). Although the CSC funding requirement in
2008 was $204 million, in 2011 the CSC funding requirement is
anticipated to be $234 million. Thus the amount proposed by the
President will only be sufficient to cover approximately 80 percent of
the BIA's total CSC requirement. Similarly, the President's requested
increase for IHS contract support will maintain the average IHS CSC
funding at roughly 80 percent of need, the same as it was in FY 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To the extent Congress concludes that budgetary constraints stand
in the way of fully closing the funding gap in FY 2011, the National
Tribal Contract Support Cost Coalition endorses the approach advanced
by the Tribal Self-Governance Advisory Committee to the Indian Health
Service, and by the Self-Governance Advisory Committee to the
Department of the Interior, calling for the IHS $105 million shortfall
to be closed within a three-year period, and calling for the remaining
BIA shortfall to be closed within a two-year period. This can be
accomplished by adding to the President's Budget proposal one-third of
the remaining shortfall amounts specified above. For IHS, that means
adding to the President's $45.5 million proposed increase approximately
$35 million in each of fiscal years 2011, 2012 and 2013. For BIA, that
means adding to the President's $21.5 million proposed increase
approximately $15 million in each of fiscal years 2011 and 2012.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this written testimony to
the Committee on behalf of the National Tribal Contract Support Cost
Coalition.
______
Prepared Statement of Paul Iron Cloud, CEO, Oglala Sioux (Lakota)
Housing
Chairman Dorgan, Vice Chairman Barrasso, and distinguished members
of the Committee. My name is Paul Iron Cloud and I am the CEO of Oglala
Sioux (Lakota) Housing. I would like to start by thanking Chairman
Dorgan for his leadership on Indian housing issues.
As the CEO of our housing agency, I have great concerns over the
President's proposed reduction of the budget for the Native American
Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA). While most
other federal Indian programs received increases or only slight
reductions, the President has proposed slashing the NAHASDA budget by
18 percent, thus reducing the amount available for affordable housing
in Indian Country from $700 million to a mere $580 million. If the
President's proposal stands, it would be the lowest level of funding
ever given to NAHASDA in its entire thirteen-year history.
Not only would the reduced funding be a huge blow to tribal housing
across the country, but it would undo and potentially reverse any gains
that the tribal and national economies have achieved from spending
stimulus funds under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The
Oglala Sioux Tribe received over $8 million in Indian housing stimulus
funds during FY 2009. These funds have already helped complete much-
needed renovations and playground construction and we have also begun
the development of new homes. Oglala Sioux (Lakota) Housing has
followed the federal mandate and successfully put these funds under
contract for shovel-ready projects. As the Committee is no doubt aware,
the stimulus funds cannot be used for the day-to-day operation of our
program or homes. We must have NAHASDA funded at least at the current
$700 million level in order to protect and leverage the gains made by
the use of stimulus funds.
You well know the crisis in Indian housing that exists on our
Reservation; violence, suicides, over-crowding and deplorable housing
conditions. Yet at the very time that our revamped and now highly-
regarded housing program at Pine Ridge is doing important things with
NAHASDA and special Recovery Act funding, the Administration proposes
an 18 percent cutback in NAHASDA appropriations. Oglala Sioux (Lakota)
Housing has worked incredibly hard to do an exemplary job to re-start
production of new housing units, to do vitally-needed retrofitting and
modernizing of existing units and to ramp-up the private construction
sector on the reservation. If the President's proposed cutbacks are
enacted by Congress, it will once again pull the rug out from under our
efforts.
Oglala Sioux (Lakota) Housing needs 4,000 new units to fully
address its housing needs. To achieve that goal would require a
substantial increase in current housing funding. But a decrease in
funding would be much more devastating for us. Reducing our annual
NAHASDA funding would eliminate the limited number of new units that we
have planned to build next year and it would also seriously impact our
management and maintenance of our homes. Budget cuts would seriously
damage our program and bring more suffering to many housing tenants and
to those on our long waiting lists.
HUD has in published comments have attempted to justify its
proposed cuts by equating the NAHASDA funding to its only other
substantial cut, the Public Housing Capital fund, but Public Housing
has both a Capital and an Operating fund. HUD actually proposed
increased funding for the Public Operating fund. Under NAHASDA, Indian
housing has both its capital and operating funds combined into a single
grant allocation. The cuts proposed by the Administration take both
capital and operational funds away from the Tribes. Decreased funding
for NAHASDA will drastically impact the management, operations and
maintenance of tens of thousands of homes under current management in
Indian Country.
If the NAHASDA appropriation were simply to keep pace with
inflation (which it has never done) the original initial allocation in
1998 would have grown to a $835 million appropriation in the last
fiscal year.
On behalf of my Tribe, our housing program, and all the others
affected by this proposed cut, I implore you to support and assist in
maintaining or increasing the current NAHASDA appropriation of $700
million. I want to again thank the Committee for its interest in fully-
funding affordable housing in Indian country.
I would be happy to answer any questions you might have.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Edward T. Begay, Chairman, Navajo
Agricultural Products Industry
Introduction
Good afternoon Chairman Dorgan, Vice Chairman Barrasso, Senator
Udall, and distinguished members of the Committee on Indian Affairs. I
am Edward T. Begay and I am the Chairman of the Navajo Agricultural
Products Industry (NAPI), an economic agribusiness enterprise chartered
under the laws of the Navajo Nation and managed by an independent Board
of Directors and management team.
On behalf of the NAPI, I am pleased to submit this statement
relating to President Obama's Fiscal Year 2011 Budget request for
tribal programs and initiatives.
Background on the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project
The Navajo Indian Irrigation Project (NIIP) was authorized by
Congress in 1962 and received a Federal commitment to build a 110,000-
acre irrigated farm project to be completed in 14 years. NAPI is an
economic enterprise wholly-owned by the Navajo Nation and is charged
with operating a commercial farm on the NIIP lands located in the
northwestern part of the Navajo reservation in New Mexico. Forty-eight
years later, the NIIP is only 75 percent complete contrary to the
intent of Congress, the agreement negotiated by the Navajo Nation and
the United States memorialized in the NIIP legislation (Pub.L. 87-483;
76 Stat. 96), and the Government's treaty and trust obligations to the
Navajo Nation.
Today NAPI operates an 66,000-acre farm, generates $40 million in
income, and employs more than 400 people. When complete, the farm will
include 110,630 acres. In its operations, NAPI has stressed the use of
the state-of-the-art technology and environmentally friendly practices.
The major crops grown and sold by NAPI are alfalfa, corn, onions, wheat
and small grains, potatoes, pinto beans, and cattle grazing. NAPI also
leases land for specialty crops, including pumpkins, popcorn, and
chipper potatoes used for potato chips.
NAPI's agribusiness features state-of-the-art farming equipment,
including high-tech radio control, and center pivot irrigation systems
that efficiently manage water resources.
The President's FY 2011 Budget Request for the Navajo Indian Irrigation
Project
On February 1, 2010, President Obama submitted to Congress a $3.8
trillion budget request and proposed a 3-year freeze on non-defense,
domestic discretionary spending. This category includes the bulk of
programs and services for tribal communities, in particular Indian
resources management construction programs.
The budget request proposes $12.43 million for the NIIP. While NAPI
appreciates the continued investment made in NIIP, we are disappointed
that the current request fails to fully support the construction of
Block 9 and efforts to complete the NIIP pursuant to Pub.L. 87-483; 76
Stat. 96.
Therefore, the NAPI strongly urges Congress to provide funding in
the amount of $50 million for completion of construction of Block 9 of
the NIIP. In addition, the component of the NIIP development for which
the Bureau of Indian Affairs is primarily responsible, on-farm
development (OFD), has been underfunded for years, so that the land in
Block 9 for which the Bureau of Reclamation has already completed the
primary irrigation infrastructure will not be usable for crops until
2012 unless funding for OFD is not increased dramatically. NAPI urges
the Congress to fund OFD in FY 2011 in the amount of $9.45 million. Due
in large part to the underfunding of NIIP Operations and Maintenance
(O&M) during the previous eight years, the deferred maintenance of the
NIIP threatens the very integrity of the project. NAPI therefore urges
Congress to increase NIIP O&M funding to $12.5 million in FY 2011.
Finally, we request an appropriation of $750,000 for FY 2011 to fund
the Agricultural Research and Testing Laboratory that serves all of the
NIIP. We understand that these funding levels are generally consistent
with those recommended by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Utilization of a fully-built Block 9 will permit NAPI to augment
its value-added programs, which now include a Fresh-Pack potato
operation, a flour mill, and an expanding feedlot operation, and
which--if sufficient land is made available--will include a potato
processing facility with nationally respected partners. These
initiatives will increase employment opportunities dramatically for the
Navajo Nation and the Four Corners area, diversify and enhance the
regional and State economies, provide greater profits and capital for
further expansion by NAPI, and provide greater national food security.
Simply put, NAPI believes completing Block 9 promptly and funding OFD
and O&M appropriately is simply good economic policy for the United
States.
Conclusion
While NAPI is appreciative for the continued support to complete
NIIP, the history of federal funding for the NIIP and related
activities reveals that partial and delayed funding has resulted in the
delay in economic opportunities, job creation, and chronic problems in
maintaining irrigation equipment and physical infrastructure. These
problems are exacerbated through time and each fiscal cycle that fails
to provide the necessary funding.
This concludes my written statement. Thank you again for this
opportunity and please do not hesitate to contact me for additional
information or questions.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Indian Higher Education Consortium
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
Prepared Statement of Mark Pruner, President, Native American Broadband
Association
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
Prepared Statement of Dr. Patrick Rock, President-Elect, National
Council of Urban Indian Health
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
Prepared Statement of Kawerak Incorporated
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Tom Udall
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Byron L. Dorgan to
Hon. Thomas J. Perrelli
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Tom Udall to
Hon. Thomas J. Perrelli
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]