U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

58–128 PDF 2010

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 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota, Chairman 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Vice Chairman 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

JON TESTER, Montana 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

TOM COBURN, M.D., Oklahoma 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

ALLISON C. BINNEY, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

DAVID A. MULLON JR., Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

(III) 

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 

(1) 

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. 

2 

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:] 

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. 


225a1.eps
3 

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:] 

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 


225a2.eps
4 

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 acVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:46 Nov 16, 2010 Jkt 058128 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\DOCS\58128.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
5 

counting 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? 

6 

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 setaside 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 witVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:46 Nov 16, 2010 Jkt 058128 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\58128.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
7 

nesses 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. 

8 

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 grantmaking 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. 

9 

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. 

10 

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 

11 

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:] 

12 

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 

13 

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. 

14 

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. 

15 

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 selfdetermination. 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. 

16 

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 

17 

$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 develop- ment 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 ConstrucVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:46 Nov 16, 2010 Jkt 058128 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\58128.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
18 

tion 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. 

19 

[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:] 

20 


225b1.eps
21 

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. 


225b2.eps
22 

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? 

23 

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 ques- tions. On the $75 million cut, you said there was a 7 percent setaside, 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 mil- lion 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. 

24 

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. 

25 

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. 

26 

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. 

27 

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 

28 

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 

29 

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 YukonKuskokwim 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. 

30 

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 

31 

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 necVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:46 Nov 16, 2010 Jkt 058128 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\58128.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
32 

essary 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:] 

33 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JEFFERSON KEEL, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL CONGRESS

OF AMERICAN INDIANS


225c1.eps
34 


225c2.eps
35 


225c3.eps
36 


225c4.eps
37 


225c5.eps
38 


225c6.eps
39 


225c7.eps
40 


225c8.eps
41 


225c9.eps
42 


225c10.eps
43 

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 proVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:46 Nov 16, 2010 Jkt 058128 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\58128.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF

225c11.eps
44 

mote 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 

45 

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


225d1.eps
46 


225d2.eps
47 


225d3.eps
48 


225d4.eps
49 


225d5.eps
50 


225d6.eps
51 


225d7.eps
52 


225d8.eps
53 


225d9.eps
54 


225d10.eps
55 


225d11.eps
56 


225d12.eps
57 

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 


225d13.eps
58 

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, 

59 

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. 

60 

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. 

61 

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. 

62 

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 

63 

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. 

64 

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 

65 

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 difVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:46 Nov 16, 2010 Jkt 058128 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\58128.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
66 

ference 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 

67 

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.] 

(69) 

A P P E N D I X 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID M. GIPP, PRESIDENT, UNITED TRIBES TECHNICAL

COLLEGE


225e1.eps
70 


225e2.eps
71 


225e3.eps
72 

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 


225e4.eps
73 

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 selfgovernance 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 

74 

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. 

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

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 SelfDetermination 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 shovelready 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 restart 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 

75 

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. Fortyeight 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 hightech 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 

76 

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. 

77 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN INDIAN HIGHER EDUCATION CONSORTIUM


225f1.eps
78 


225f2.eps
79 


225f3.eps
80 


225f4.eps
81 


225f5.eps
82 


225f6.eps
83 


225f7.eps
84 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARK PRUNER, PRESIDENT, NATIVE AMERICAN BROADBAND

ASSOCIATION


225g1.eps
85 


225g2.eps
86 


225g3.eps
87 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. PATRICK ROCK, PRESIDENT-ELECT, NATIONAL COUNCIL

OF URBAN INDIAN HEALTH


225h1.eps
88 


225h2.eps
89 


225h3.eps
90 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KAWERAK INCORPORATED


225g4.eps 225i1.eps
91 


225i2.eps
92 


225i3.eps
93 


225i4.eps
94 


225i5.eps 225i6.eps
95 


225i7.eps 225i8.eps
96 


225i9.eps 225i10.eps
97 


225i11.eps 225i12.eps
98 


225i13.eps 225i14.eps
99 


225i15.eps 225i16.eps
100 


225i17.eps 225i18.eps
101 


225i19.eps 225i20.eps
102 


225i21.eps 225i22.eps
103 


225i23.eps 225i24.eps
104 


225i25.eps 225i26.eps 225i27.eps
105 


225i28.eps
106 


225i29.eps 225i30.eps
107 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. TOM UDALL


225j1.eps
108 


225j2.eps
109 


225j3.eps
110 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. BYRON L. DORGAN TO

HON. THOMAS J. PERRELLI


225k1.eps
111 


225k2.eps
112 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. TOM UDALL TO

HON. THOMAS J. PERRELLI


225k3.eps
113 


225k4.eps
114 


225k5.eps
115 


225k6.eps
116 

Æ 


225k7.eps