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) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

26–112 PDF 2006

S. HRG. 109–396, PT. 1

FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE PRESIDENT’S FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET

REQUEST FOR INDIAN PROGRAMS

FEBRUARY 14, 2006

WASHINGTON, DC

PART 1

(
COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

JOHN McCAIN, Arizona, Chairman

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota, Vice Chairman

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming

GORDON SMITH, Oregon

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska

MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina

TOM COBURN, M.D., Oklahoma

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington

JEANNE BUMPUS, Majority Staff Director

SARA G. GARLAND, Minority Staff Director

(II)
(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Statements:

Blunt, Paula, general deputy assistant secretary, Public and Indian Housing, Office of Native American Programs, Department of Housing and

Urban Development ...................................................................................... 11

Boyd, Roger, deputy assistant secretary, Public and Indian Housing, Office of Native American Programs ............................................................... 11

Cabrera, Orlando, assistant secretary, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development .............................. 11

Carothers, Cathie, acting director, Office of Indian Education .................... 9

Cason, James, associate deputy secretary, Department of the Interior ...... 6

Corwin, Thomas, director of division of elementary and secondary vocational analysis, Department of Education .................................................. 9

Dorgan, Hon. Byron L., U.S. Senator from North Dakota, vice chairman,

Committee on Indian Affairs ....................................................................... 2

Edwards, Gary, chief executive officer, National Native American Law

Enforcement Association .............................................................................. 35

Garcia, Joseph A., president, National Congress of Amrican Indians ......... 26

Gordon, Gary, executive director, National American Indian Housing

Council ........................................................................................................... 33

Grim, Charles W., director, IHS, Department of Health and Human Services .................................................................................................................. 7

Hartz, Gary, director, Office of Environmental Health and Engineering,

Department of Health and Human Services .............................................. 7

Johnson, Hon. Tim, U.S. Senator from South Dakota .................................. 3

Kitcheyan, Kathleen, member, Board of Directors, National Indian

Health Board, chairwoman, San Carlos Apache Tribal Council ............... 29

Marburger, Darla, deputy assistant secretary for policy, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education ........................ 9

McCain, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from Arizona, chairman, Committee

on Indian Affairs ........................................................................................... 1

McSwain, Robert G., deputy director, IHS ..................................................... 7

Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator from Alaska ......................................... 4

Parish, Cheryl, secretary and board member, National American Indian

Housing Council ............................................................................................ 33

Schofield, Regina, assistant attorney general, Office of Justice Programs,

Department of Justice .................................................................................. 13

Swimmer, Ross, special trustee for American Indians .................................. 6

Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from Wyoming ........................................ 3

Vanderwagen, Craig, acting chief medical officer, IHS ................................. 7

Wilson, Ryan, president, National Indian Education Association ................ 31

APPENDIX

Prepared statements:

Cabrera, Orlando (with attachment) .............................................................. 51

Cason, James (with attachment) ..................................................................... 60

Edwards, Gary .................................................................................................. 89

Garcia, Joseph A. .............................................................................................. 95

Gipp, David M., president, United Tribes Technical College ........................ 109

Grim, Charles W. (with attachment) .............................................................. 45

Hall, Tex, United Tribes Technical College, board president, chairman,

Mandan, Hidatasa, Arikara Nation ............................................................. 109

Jimmie, Andrew, chairman, Alaska Native Health Board ........................... 114

Kitcheyan, Kathleen ......................................................................................... 124
Page

IV

Prepared statements—Continued

MacDonald-Lone Tree, Hope, delegate, Navajo Nation Council, chairperson, Public Safety Commission, Navajo Nation Council ...................... 134

Marburger, Darla (with attachment) .............................................................. 141

National Indian Head Start Directors Association ........................................ 43

National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers ...................... 157

Parish, Cheryl ................................................................................................... 161

Roanhorse, Jr., Anslem, MSW, executive director, Navajo Division of

Health, on behalf of Joe Shirley, Jr., president, Navajo Nation ............... 183

Schofield, Regina (with attachments) ............................................................. 167

Swimmer, Ross (with attachment) .................................................................. 60

Thomas, Virginia, President, National Johnson-O’Malley Association

Board .............................................................................................................. 188

Wilson, Ryan (with attachment) ..................................................................... 193

Additional material submitted for the record:

Letter to President George W. Bush from Daniel R. Hawkins, Jr., vice

president, Federal, State, and Public Affairs, National Association of

Community Health Centers, Inc. ................................................................. 222
(1)

FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2006

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS, Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:35 p.m. in room 106

Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John McCain (chairman of

the committee) presiding.

Present: Senators McCain, Akaka, Dorgan, Johnson, Murkowski,

and Thomas.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN MCCAIN, U.S. SENATOR FROM

ARIZONA, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

The CHAIRMAN. Good afternoon. Let me begin by applauding the

Administration for eliminating earmarks in the President’s budget

and commending efforts to reduce ineffective or inefficient spending. But while we must all be concerned for our fiscal future and

must make tough choices, we cannot renege on the Federal Government’s trust and moral obligations to Indians.

In evaluating the proposed budget against this backdrop, I am

deeply concerned that the funding for the earmarks was simply

eliminated, rather than redirected to continue supporting the Indian programs or services which already experience severe underfunding.

I am also concerned that programs deemed non-essential or duplicative by the Administrative were eliminated in their entirety

without consulting with Indian tribes or this committee, without a

realistic assessment of existing or available alternative services

and without evaluation of the impacts upon the Indian recipients,

especially children.

For example, I am troubled that even though the latest census

stat indicates that a majority of Indians live in urban areas, the

funding for urban Indian health programs, which have been in existence for over 30 years, was eliminated. The Administration has

indicated that other services may be available, primarily from the

community health centers.

We all know that community health centers are badly underfunded, but no information, data or statistics were provided to support such a drastic change in policy. Without such information, we

cannot begin to determine whether CHC’s have the capacity to

treat a whole new patient population with culturally specific needs,

much less determine whether shifting Indian patients from Indian
2

clinics will meet the long-term health requirements of this population.

As a fiscal conservative, I worked many years to make our government more effective and less wasteful in determining where to

make cuts in a vast array of sometimes gilded Federal programs.

However, we must remain mindful of our obligation to Native

Americans who remain the very poorest in our country. We must

carefully review changes in programs and policies to ensure that

we endeavor to meet our responsibilities.

I think my friend, Senator Dorgan, would agree with me that

sometimes we see these budgets come over with cuts that they

know are going to be restored by the Congress. It is a game as old

as there is as long as we have been doing business. But I think

that some of these cuts clearly send out the wrong signal to Indian

country as to what our belief and the fulfillment of our obligation

to Native Americans is all about.

Senator Dorgan.

STATEMENT OF HON. BYRON L. DORGAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM

NORTH DAKOTA, VICE CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON INDIAN

AFFAIRS

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

Let me thank all of the witnesses who are coming today before

the committee.

We have a responsibility to provide our advice to the Budget

committee on budget issues. I would share the chairman’s observation about some of these matters. I think sometimes we have recommendations to zero out funding with the full expectation that

Congress would not allow that with certain programs, and Congress itself will restore the funding.

I do want to point out that I think that we have in this country

some people locked in a cycle of poverty, most particularly on Indian reservations with a full-scale crisis in health care, in education, in housing, with unmet needs that are very substantial. The

budget issues reflects a set of priorities. It answers the question,

what are the priorities for this country. I have very substantial disagreements with a number of the priorities in the President’s budget.

From previous discussions we have had, Mr. Chairman, on this

committee, I know that about 40 percent of the health care needs

are unmet, roughly 40 percent of the health care needs of Native

Americans are unmet needs. It is a trust responsibility we have for

Native Americans and yet we sit here, the witnesses sit there, the

Administration is down the street a ways, and none of us should

be or will be content with 40 percent of the health care needs being

unmet. It is a crisis.

How many children today are not going to get health care when

they need it? And we know they are not going to get health care.

So we have a responsibility to do something about this, this committee, the Budget Committee, the Administration. The budget is

simply a starting point. This opportunity to have a full discussion

about that is a unique and good opportunity.

I look forward to hearing the witnesses, Mr. Chairman. I did

want to say there is a pent-up passion of mine for us to get serious
3

about the third world conditions that exist in some parts of our

country, notably Indian reservations, where a lot of people who

need health care are not getting it, where kids are going to schools

that are in disrepair, and where opportunities for housing are not

the same as in other parts of the country. We can do something

about that if we have the will. There is a way to do it, and I hope

that at the end of this process this year, we will make some

progress on all of those issues.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Thomas.

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

WYOMING

Senator THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just simply want to agree with what both of you have said. I

think it is very important for us to take a look at these budgets.

Obviously, we have some times of great need. I think there is special need often in Indian country and we need to take a look at

that.

On the other hand, we have the spending of the money. So it is

a real challenge, and thank you for starting us on that road today.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Johnson.

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

SOUTH DAKOTA

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to

the members of the panel.

I come to this hearing with a little bit of a different perspective

in that besides this seat on the Committee on Indian Affairs, I also

serve on the Budget Committee and the Appropriations Committee.

Budgets are fascinating documents because it is when you get to

the budget document that rhetoric and reality begin to part ways,

because it is the budget that clarifies where priorities, where values truly lie. We have never had any shortage of rhetoric directed

toward improving the lot of Native Americans, but the budget too

many times has fallen far short of reflecting what that rhetoric

would suggest.

I am concerned about underfunding in health care and education,

among others. One of the things that I think we need to do a much

better job of is directing resources in a manner which would spawn

a much stronger private sector economy in Indian country, because

it is apparent to me after my years in the Congress in both the

House and the Senate that we simply cannot rely year after year

on the Federal Government to fully live up to its treaty and trust

responsibilities, because it has fallen woefully short every year that

I can think of. We need to find ways to diminish that dependency

that we have had too much of, but that does not come free. That

involves investment in education and infrastructure and other

needs in Indian country as well.

While we are at it, I think it will continue to be important that

this Congress maintains a consultative respectful relationship with

the tribes involved. This should not be a top-down decisionmaking

process. This needs to be one that is consultative and reflective of

the sovereignty and the government-to-government relationship
4

which does indeed exist or should exist between our tribes and the

Federal Government.

So I am grateful for the Chairman holding this hearing. I look

forward to a much closer analysis of the budget that is being proposed to us. It is true that we can make changes, but it is also true

that the pool of discretionary domestic funding that is available

continues to shrink year after year after year, forcing decisions

that should not have to be made.

So thank you, Mr. Chairman, for conducting this hearing.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

Senator Murkowski.

STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR FROM

ALASKA

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do appreciate

the hearing this afternoon.

To all of you gathered here this afternoon, thank you for joining

us.

I do have a full statement that I want to submit to the record,

Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection.

Senator MURKOWSKI. Just a few comments before we move to the

panel. I want to take 1 minute to acknowledge Ryan Wilson, who

is the president of the National Indian Education Association. They

are having their annual legislative meeting here in Washington. I

know that several of our colleagues are going to be speaking at the

meeting tomorrow morning, as I will.

Yesterday, Ryan delivered a State of Indian Education address.

One of his key messages was that it is crucial for this committee

to travel to Indian country so that we can hear from those who

work on the frontlines of Indian education, so that we can witness

the conditions of the facilities.

But perhaps more importantly, that we can interact with Native

young people and let them know that somebody cares about their

future, that somebody cares about their education. This is an important idea, and I would hope that the committee would be able

to accommodate it.

I am still looking forward to an opportunity to have Secretary

Spellings travel to the State of Alaska as former Secretary Paige

had an opportunity to do a couple of years ago, where he was able

to witness not only some of the creativity of our teachers and administrators in the rural areas, but understand some of the challenges in implementing Federal programs such as No Child Left

Behind in very isolated rural places. So I will again extend the invitation through you, Ms. Marburger, to Secretary Spellings to

again see for herself first-hand.

I want to take a few minutes to say a few words about the proposed budget. I want to acknowledge the Bureau of Indian Affairs’

[BIA] efforts to fund the contract support costs. The Indian Health

Service [IHS] can be proud of the fact that it has obtained funding

to keep up with the population changes and medical inflation. I

also note a flight increase in the funds proposed for rural sanitation.
5

We may quarrel about the sufficiency of these increases. We still

do not have the 10 percent annual increase in IHS clinical services

that I have been fighting for since I came to the Senate, nor is the

Federal Government spending what it should for the care of Indians. It is a recognition that we have to do what we can when it

comes to that care.

I have to hand it to you, Dr. Grim, and to Mr. Cason, for working

the system to make the best that you can of a tough budget. But

there are some provisions that I do remain concerned about. The

IHS’ facility construction program, what was supposed to be a 1-

year pause in the program is emerging to be a 2-year freeze. I am

concerned. I want to know what the effect of these cuts will be on

the construction of the new in-patient facilities at Barrow and

Nome. These are number one and two on the priority list. That is

something that we are looking at with great concern.

Also, the proposal to discontinue funding for urban Indian health

programs is also disconcerting. We do not necessarily have the

urban programs in Alaska, but the urban clinics in the western

United States serve numerous Alaska Natives who have relocated

to other parts of the country, looking for employment and a better

life. So it is troubling when one considers that some of the clients

served by these urban clinics were encouraged to leave their reservations in the 1950’s as part of this policy of relocating Indians

out of Indian country.

I do have some concerns, again I would mention the Indian education, the Johnson O’Malley program, which has proved to be a

vital cultural link for Native children receiving education in the

public school system. It is proposed for elimination. The Office of

Indian Education, you have to wonder what specifically is happening there.

We had very able leadership under Assistant Deputy Secretary

Vasquez. The office had a clear reporting relationship to Secretary

Paige. It is now being headed by an acting director, as Ms. Vasquez

has left, but it is kind of buried in there in the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. So we look to work with you to better understand how these can all be brought together.

There is lots to talk about today, Mr. Chairman. Of all the hearings that this committee conducts in this year, this one is probably

the most important to Indian country. So I look forward to hearing

from those who have agreed to be with us this afternoon, and to

share some of the concerns that we have as we talk about our obligations.

Thank you.

[Prepared statement of Senator Murkowski appears in appendix.]

The CHAIRMAN. Our panel of witnesses, some we have had the

opportunity of visiting with on numerous occasions, and there are

others who are new here today.

James Cason, who has been here on a number of occasions, is the

associate deputy secretary of the Department of the Interior. He is

accompanied by Ross Swimmer, an old friend who is the special

trustee for American Indians. Charles W. Grim is the director of

the IHS, the Department of Health and Human Services. He is accompanied by Robert G. McSwain, the deputy director of the IHS;

Craig Vanderwagen, who is the acting chief medical officer of the
6

IHS; and Gary Hartz, who is director of the Office of Environmental Health and Engineering, Department of Health and Human

Services.

Darla Marburger is deputy assistant secretary for policy, Office

of Elementary and Secondary Education. She is accompanied by

Cathie Carothers, who is the acting director of the Office of Indian

Education; and Tom Corwin, who is the director of the Division of

Elementary and Secondary Vocational Analysis in the Department

of Education.

Orlando Cabrera is the assistant secretary, Office of Public and

Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development.

He is accompanied by Roger Boyd, who is the deputy assistant secretary of Public and Indian Housing, Office of Native American

Programs; and Paula Blunt, who is the general deputy assistant

secretary, Public and Indian Housing, Office of Native American

Programs at the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Finally, but not least, Regina Schofield is the assistant attorney

general, Office of Justice Programs at the Department of Justice.

Welcome. We will begin with you, Mr. Cason.

STATEMENT OF JAMES CASON, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ACCOMPANIED

BY ROSS SWIMMER, SPECIAL TRUSTEE FOR AMERICAN

INDIANS

Mr. CASON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

I am here representing the Department of the Interior, along

with Ross Swimmer, who is the Special Trustee for American Indians. Ross and I have concluded that we are not going to offer an

opening statement beyond just introduction, to afford the committee the most time to ask us questions and respond to your interests.

Thank you.

[Prepared statement of Mr. Cason appears in appendix.]

The CHAIRMAN. Maybe a general comment on the budget submission, Mr. Cason, might be appropriate, if you had just a brief comment.

Mr. CASON. Okay. Just briefly for both OST and the Department,

the Indian Affairs budget is roughly even. We are about $70 million short of the 2006 enacted amount. Of that amount, most of

that falls into the category of school construction, $47 million is the

equivalent of a school that is not on the replacement list, in order

to make our budget balance.

There were a lot of additions and deletions in our budget in Indian Affairs. What we tried to do is take a look at the entirety of

the Indian Affairs budget, identify the things that we believe to be

core systems in our budget or core requirements in our budget, and

then identify all the other secondary and tertiary pieces of the

budget and look to maintain the integrity of all the core systems,

use secondary and tertiary programs to make new investment in

core systems, or ensure that no reduction occurred in them, and

then use as tradeoffs secondary and tertiary programs.
7

Most of those ended up being supplemental activities for core

systems, or very small bit programs that did not have very much

of an investment.

We have a big commitment to Indian education embodied in our

budget. That is very important to us, and we are spending a lot of

time and effort on that program area. As the committee knows, we

are spending a lot of time on trust and our trust responsibilities.

Those are the two principal drivers of the Indian Affairs budget.

Ross, did you want to make any comment on yours?

Mr. SWIMMER. Just briefly. Our budget is basically the same,

with a small reduction in the operating side of it. We have asked

for an increase on behalf of the pass-through that we give to the

BIA for the Indian Land Consolidation Program of approximately

$21 million to increase the amount of funding for that program to

acquire the very small fractional interest in Indian country, and

make the land much more useful, and decrease the cost of having

to deal with these very small fractional interests.

We have what I believe is the funding to proceed with the development of the fiduciary trust model, which is in essence a fiduciary

trust operation within the Department of the Interior to administer

the trust. We continue to administer that model, to implement the

model, mainly through conversion of systems, cleanup of records,

and reconciliation efforts. Our budget is also of course committed

to the historical accounting through the Office of Historical Trust

Accounting. Of the total of our budget of approximately $244 million, the

amount that the Special Trustee actually controls for its budget is

about $114 million. The rest of it is given out to other offices or

bureaus within the Department of the Interior to do other trust activities such as the Oken Ota.

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Dr. Grim, welcome back.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES W. GRIM, DIRECTOR, IHS, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ACCOMPANIED

BY ROBERT G. MCSWAIN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR; CRAIG

VANDERWAGEN, ACTING CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER; AND

GARY HARTZ, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL

HEALTH AND ENGINEERING

Mr. GRIM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members. I appreciate

your time today.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to present the President’s

fiscal year 2007 budget request for the IHS. I would like to summarize my written statement and ask that it be entered into the

record.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection.

Mr. GRIM. First, I want to be up front with you. I do not think

it was missed in any of your opening comments that this budget

reflected some hard choices that needed to be made about where

funds can be used most effectively to improve the health status of

American Indian and Alaska Native people. To meet the President’s goal of cutting the deficit in half by 2009, some well-inten-
8

tioned programs have been reduced or eliminated in the overall

budget and IHS was not immune to this.

This budget reflects our effort to make those difficult choices in

the wisest way. Overall, however, the request for IHS represents

the commitment of the Administration to protect programs that

have proven to be effective.

While the overall discretionary spending within DHHS is proposed to be reduced by 2.1 percent, the request for IHS is a 4.1 percent increase or $125 million over the fiscal year 2006 enacted

level. The increase is direct funding to the highest priorities that

were expressed by tribes during the budget consultation processes

we held. They told us that funding of items to maintain the current

services is where funding is needed first.

Therefore, this budget includes an increase of $134 million to

cover pay raises for IHS and tribal staff, for the increased costs of

delivering health care, and for increased services resulting from a

growing American Indian and Alaska Native population.

There is also an increase of $32 million included for new staffing

and operating costs at four new health centers that will be opening

during fiscal year 2007. There is $11 million that is included to

cover the increased costs of implementing the department’s unified

financial management system within Indian Health Service. I am

very pleased that our budget had that level of increases.

On the other hand, the President’s budget for the IHS contains

some difficult choices, as I mentioned earlier, but I want to acknowledge that the decisions made are consistent with the responsible budget principles that were applied throughout the President’s budget request.

There are 141 programs that were proposed for termination or

reduction in the President’s budget, some that were proposed because performance had not been satisfactory, and other that were

proposed because their purposes may have been addressed in other

agencies.

The IHS’s Urban Indian Health Program was deemed to fall into

that last category and therefore the budget request is that funding

for this program be eliminated in fiscal year 2007. However, I want

to add that the department is committed to ensuring that culturally sensitive health care services are available to American Indian and Alaska Native people who find themselves living in those

urban areas.

Another area of hard choices we had to make was in the area of

construction, as was noted by Senator Murkowski. The budget request for IHS health care facilities in 2007 is $17.7 million, which

is a $20 million reduction from the fiscal year 2006 enacted level.

That requested amount will complete one facility, the construction

of the Phoenix Indian Medical Center Southwest Ambulatory Care

Center. Construction on that facility is scheduled to begin this fiscal year with fiscal year 2006 appropriated funds.

While the replacement of aging facilities is an important area for

expanding access to care, this budget is intended to ensure that the

basic needs of all Indian Health Service and tribal programs

throughout the IHS are met. So we chose to focus during a tight

budget year on offering treatment and not building infrastructure.
9

In addition, the request for 2007 is consistent within HHS’s overall facilities management strategy in that no new construction is

funded in fiscal year 2007.

In closing, I just want to reiterate that this budget supports tribal priorities to maintain current services funding levels of our system and the budget will ensure continued access to high quality

medical and preventive services for our population. It reflects the

continued Federal commitment to the American Indian and Alaska

Native people.

Thank you for your time. I would be pleased to answer any questions you might have.

[Prepared statement of Dr. Grim appears in appendix.]

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Marburger, welcome.

STATEMENT OF DARLA MARBURGER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT

SECRETARY FOR POLICY, OFFICE OF ELEMENTARY AND

SECONDARY EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, ACCOMPANIED BY CATHIE CAROTHERS, ACTING DIRECTOR,

OFFICE OF INDIAN EDUCATION; AND THOMAS CORWIN, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY

VOCATIONAL ANALYSIS

Ms. MARBURGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the

committee. On behalf of Secretary Spellings, thank you for the opportunity to discuss our fiscal year 2007 budget request for the Department of Education programs serving American Indians and

Alaska Natives.

My name is Darla Marburger and I am deputy assistant secretary in the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. I am

joined by my colleagues. After I give you a summary of my written

remarks, we will be happy to answer any questions that you may

have.

The Bush administration is strongly committed to ensuring that

American Indians and Alaska Natives benefit from national education reforms and receive every opportunity to achieve to high

academic standards. Recent data suggest that our investments in

Indian education are beginning to pay off.

We know that more Indian students are pursuing post-secondary

education than ever before. The number of Indian students enrolling in colleges and universities is up. American Indian and Alaska

Native students are scoring higher than they have in the past in

the national assessment of educational progress. They are also

scoring higher than other minority groups.

However, significant achievement gaps persist between American

Indian and Alaska Native student populations and the general population. These students continue to be subject to significant risk

factors that threaten their ability to improve their academic

achievement and their general well being, and continue to need

support from the Federal programs that address the specific educational needs of the population.

The 2007 budget request for the Department of Education builds

on the success of the No Child Left Behind Act and supports the

President’s commitment to provide resources to help improve educational opportunities for all students. American Indian students

will continue to benefit from the implementation of the No Child
10

Left Behind Act, as well as new initiatives, including the $1.5 billion High School Reform Program to improve the quality of secondary education, and the President’s $380 million American Competitiveness Initiative to give students a strong foundation in mathematics and science skills needed to compete in the 21st century

economy.

Overall, department programs would under the fiscal year 2007

budget provide approximately $1 billion in direct support specifically for Indians and Alaska Natives. In addition, significant funds

are provided to Indian students who receive services through

broader Federal programs such as the ESEA Title I grants to local

educational agencies and the IDEA State grants.

The BIA would receive over $215 million of Department of Education funds to support Indian education programs operated by

that agency. We work closely with the BIA on program implementation issues and to improve the quality of the services the agency

provides to Indian students.

The President’s request for the department’s Indian education

programs for fiscal year 2007 is $118.7 million. We are requesting

$95.3 million for Indian Education Formula Grants to local education agencies. These grants supplement the regular school program, helping Indian children improve their academic skills and

participate in enrichment programs that would otherwise be unavailable to them.

Our request for special programs for Indian children is $19.4 million. Approximately $5.7 million would support an estimated 23

demonstration grants to fund school readiness and for preschoolage children, and also to prepare secondary students to succeed in

post-secondary education.

In addition, the 2007 request would provide $9.2 million to support the American Indian Teacher Corps. This program trains Indian individuals for teaching positions in schools that have a high

concentration of Indian students. We have a similar program that

is aimed at training administrators to serve in these same schools.

We are also requesting $4 million for research evaluation, data

collection and technical assistance that is related to Indian education. This is an area where in the past we have not been able

to get a lot of said information. The data are very important to us.

Funds will continue to support data collections initiated in earlier

years, such as the special NAEP program that we have in place

that is designed to collect data on the educational experiences of

American Indian and Alaska Native students and the role of Indian culture in their education.

The other purpose of the program is to promote ongoing program

improvement for Indian education grants to LEA’s and special programs.

Our budget request for the first time would provide funding of

$200 million for formula-based title I school improvement grants.

These funds would help ensure that States receive resources to provide effective improvement support to LEA’s and schools that have

been identified as needing improvement. Under this program, the

BIA would receive approximately $1.4 million for school improvement activities.
11

This is just a brief overview, of course, of our budget activities.

The 2007 budget request for the Department of Education programs that are serving American Indians and Alaska Natives supports the President’s overall goal of ensuring educational opportunities for all students.

Thank you once again for this opportunity. At this time, I am

happy to take any questions that you may have.

[Prepared statement of Ms. Marburger appears in appendix.]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

Ms. Marburger, your complete statement will be made part of the

record. Yours, too, Mr. Cabrera.

Ms. MARBURGER. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF ORLANDO CABRERA, ASSISTANT SECRETARY,

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING, DEPARTMENT OF

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, ACCOMPANIED BY

ROGER BOYD, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR NATIVE

AMERICAN PROGRAMS; PAULA BLUNT, GENERAL DEPUTY

ASSISTANT SECRETARY

Mr. CABRERA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chairman and distinguished members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me to

address your committee.

I am here to outline President Bush’s fiscal year 2007 budget for

HUD’s Indian Housing and Community Development Programs,

and also to answer any questions that you may have.

My name is Orlando Cabrera and I am the assistant secretary

for Public and Indian Housing at HUD. As assistant secretary, I

am responsible for the management, operation and oversight of

HUD’s Native American programs. These programs are available to

all 561 federally recognized Indian tribes, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians. We serve these groups either directly or through

their tribally designated housing entities, which I will refer to from

now on as TDHE’s.

The Office of Public and Indian Housing provides grants and

loan guarantees designed to support affordable housing and community development in Indian country. Seizing momentum is key

as we continue to work together toward creating more and better

housing for Indian country and the Hawaiian Homelands.

At the outset, let me reaffirm this department’s support for the

principle of government-to-government relations with federally recognized Native American tribes. HUD is committed to honoring

this core belief in our work with all of our stakeholders.

The President believes in an ownership society. HUD’s Native

American and Native Hawaiian loan guarantee programs are the

engines that drive HUD’s homeownership efforts in Indian country

and Hawaii. For example, during fiscal year 2005, tribes and their

TDHE’s used Indian housing block grant funds to build, acquire, or

rehabilitate 1,050 rental units and 5,455 homeownership units.

Each of these became a home to a Native American family.

Let me now turn to the President’s budget request for 2007. This

budget proposes a total of $695,990,000 specifically for Native

American and Native Hawaiian housing and community development; $625.7 million is proposed under the Native American Hous-
12

ing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996, otherwise

known as NAHASDA. Of that amount, approximately $620 million

is for direct formula allocations through the Indian Housing Block

Grant Program.

The President’s budget proposes $1.98 million in credit subsidy

for NAHASDA’s Title VI program that will in turn encourage $14.9

million in private sector investment. The President proposes to

fund the Indian Community Development Block Grant Program at

$57.4 million. The Indian CDBG Program will continue to be administered by HUD’s Office of Native American Programs. $5.9

million in credit subsidies is proposed for the section 184 Indian

Housing Loan Guarantee Fund, which will provide $251 million in

loan guarantee authority.

This budget also recognizes the unique housing needs of Native

Hawaiian families eligible to reside on the Hawaiian Homelands.

HUD continues to address those needs. The Native Hawaiian community would receive $5.9 million for the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant Program, and $1 million for the section 184A Native Hawaiian Loan Guarantee Fund, which will leverage approximately $43 million in loan guarantees.

Finally, there is a total of $3.8 million available for training and

technical assistance to support the Indian and Native Hawaiian

Housing Block Grant Programs.

I would like to focus on one program, if I might, which is HUD’s

section 184 program, which addresses the special needs of Native

Americans, making it possible for Native American families to

achieve homeownership with market-rate financing. Its corollary

for Native Hawaiians is the Section 184A program. These comments would apply to both.

Overall, the section 184 program has been a great success and

the department believes that this program will continue to play a

vital role in reaching the President’s commitment to create 5.5 million minority homeowners by the end of this decade. To improve

the visibility of the program in fiscal year 2005, HUD decentralized

its outreach efforts to tribes and lenders, which enabled the department to connect with more of our clients at the local level.

The new approach resulted in 634 new homeowners and more

than $100 million in loan commitments in fiscal year 2005. The

loan commitment volume is up 68 percent over the year-end totals

for 2004. This trend has continued in fiscal year 2006, with 224

loan guarantees worth $28.2 million completed in the first quarter

of fiscal year 2006, a 58-percent increase over fiscal year 2005.

I hope that this adequately summarizes our budget for Native

American, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian programs at HUD.

Thank you for your attention. This concludes my prepared remarks

and I stand ready to answer any questions you may have.

[Prepared statement of Mr. Cabrera appears in appendix.]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

Ms. Schofield.
13

STATEMENT OF REGINA SCHOFIELD, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY

GENERAL, OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENT

OF JUSTICE

Ms. SCHOFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Vice Chairman Dorgan and members of the committee.

I am Regina Schofield, the assistant attorney general for the Office of Justice Programs. On behalf of the Attorney General and the

Department of Justice, I stand here today ready to discuss the Department’s proposed fiscal year 2007 budget priorities for Indian

country.

The needs of Indian tribal governments in combating crime and

violence continue to be great, especially in the areas of substance

abuse, domestic violence, and other violent crimes. I share the administration’s commitment to addressing these needs and have

made the government-to-government improving relationship between tribes and the Federal Government a personal priority. Since

I came to OJP 8 months ago, I have set up a Justice Programs

Council on Native American Affairs which will coordinate OJP’s

work with tribes and serve as a liaison with other Justice components on tribal issues.

Another new tool that will soon become available is the DOJ

websites specifically created for Indian country, which will feature

information on a variety of Justice issues, as well as grant funding

and training. These efforts are designed to improve communication

and to help build tribes’ capacity to create and leverage resources.

Although this budget request does not provide an increase of

Federal dollars, it does provide tribal officials with flexibility in

how to spend these dollars and the tools to spend them most effectively. For example, one of the many challenges that Indian tribes

face is collecting reliable data on criminal justice-related issues. We

have requested approximately $39 million for the National Criminal History Improvement Program, a portion of which can help

tribes improve data collection.

Tribes and States must coordinate in collecting reliable data and

ensuring that this data is readily available. This is especially true

for the several tribes that cross multiple jurisdictions such as the

Navajo Nation in Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, and the Standing

Rock Tribe in the Dakotas.

Another of our goals is to make it easier for tribes to apply for

and use our grant funding. This committee was instrumental in the

passage of several pieces of legislation regarding tribal self-governance and self-determination that have permitted tribes greater

flexibility. This has allowed tribes to demonstrate their ability to

effectively administer Federal programs. The department is requesting $31.1 million for the consolidated tribal grant program,

which can be used to hire tribal law enforcement, prosecutors, or

judicial officials, as well as to purchase or upgrade equipment.

For the drug courts program, we have requested $69.2 million

and we have already seen the impact that drug courts can have on

tribal communities. When the First Lady traveled to Phoenix to

promote her Helping America’s Youth initiative last April, she met

with many Indian youth and tribal leaders. She spoke with a girl

who completed the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian community’s
14

juvenile drug court program and is now working toward completing

her GED.

We are also working on building tribes’ capacity to combat domestic violence. We are combining the Office on Violence Against

Women funds into a single tribal grant program so that only one

application will be necessary. In addition, the new DOJ reauthorization increases the tribal set-aside from 5 percent to 10 percent

of available funds for OVW grants. We anticipate that no less than

$25 million will be available for assistance to tribes from the fiscal

year 2007 request.

We have worked with the Boys and Girls Clubs of America for

more than 15 years to serve young people in tribal communities to

reduce juvenile crime. I believe that the Boys and Girls Clubs’ outreach to young people can and should be expanded. We have requested $59.5 million to continue this work.

The department will honor our Federal trust responsibility and

continue to assist tribal justice systems in their effort to promote

safe communities. Both our current activities and our fiscal year

2007 proposed budget reflects these priorities.

I would welcome the opportunity to answer any questions. Thank

you.

[Prepared statement of Ms. Schofield appears in appendix.]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Ms. Schofield.

Mr. Cason, the budget request for trust resources management proposes a decrease of over $10 million for trust resources management from last year’s enacted level of $152 million, but proposes

an increase of $11 million in trust real estate services. What is the

difference? What am I missing here?

Mr. CASON. Mr. Chairman, the increases in the trust real estate

services is to get to a fundamental problem that we have. That is

to ensure that we have clear and accurate and contemporaneous information about ownership of trust assets. As I have testified in

other forums, we have probably the largest trust in the world, with

56 million acres, 45 million of which belongs to tribes and a little

over 10 million that belongs to individuals.

One of the things that we are encountering is two serious backlog problems. The first is with probate, that when we have Indian

trust assets, we are responsible for probating the trust assets upon

the death of the owner. We have a backlog of probates that date

back to the 1890’s. We have open probates in every decade since

the 1890’s. That is clearly an unacceptable position to be in.

Families who are the intended recipients of probated trust assets

need to get their estates probated in a timely fashion and that is

not happening. So we have put more resources there.

The other major problem is on trust real estate activities, where

we have not entered the information about encumbrances and trust

transactions in a timely fashion. So we have a backlog there, too,

that we are investing in eliminating.

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Grim, I see that the Urban Indian Health

Program has been zeroed out. It is my understanding, then, it is

expected that Native Americans would take advantage of community health centers. Is that the thinking here?

Mr. GRIM. That was one of the examples that we used in the

budget justification, Mr. Chairman, that over the course of this ad-
15

ministration there have been large increases into HRSA’s Community Health Center Program and Urban Indian Health Programs

have, as you all know, historically been hovering around about 1

percent of our budget. So two of the precepts that we used within

the department in the overall budget analysis was to look where

we think the highest potential payoff in our instance for increases

in health, and then looking at programs that might be supported

elsewhere. CHC’s were one example.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there a budget request from the Administration to increase by that level for Community Health Centers?

Mr. GRIM. No, sir; not specifically, but the budget request for the CHC’s for 2007 is I believe a $188-million increase, although not

a specific set-aside for urban Indian programs.

The CHAIRMAN. There are urban Indian health programs not

only just a program, there are facilities that provide for urban Indian health care. What are you going to do with those facilities?

Mr. GRIM. There are a broad range of programs that are funded

by the IHS under the Urban Indian Health Program. We have

taken a look and done a number of analyses. With some programs,

there will be relatively little impact by the removal of Indian

Health Service funds. Many of them have gone after numerous

State, county and other Federal grants over the years. Our funding

percentage-wise is less than 10 percent of their overall total budget.

On the other hand, there are programs that are resourced by us

at about the 80-percent level. Those, unless additional funding is

found by their program administrators, will likely have to close.

Most of those that are in that arena, although not all, are referraltype programs as well. We have a range from referral- and outreach-type programs that we fund, clear to a near fully ambulatory

health care center delivery-type system. So there is a very broad

range of types of programs we fund in that, and varying impacts

by grantee.

The CHAIRMAN. I would argue in States like mine, Dr. Grim, it

is a pretty significant impact, including major facilities.

Ms. Marburger, you eliminated the Johnson O’Malley Indian

Education Program in the President’s budget request. Right?

Ms. MARBURGER. Yes, sir.

The Chairman. $16 million. Was the $16 million eliminated from

Johnson O’Malley moved to the Department of Education budget?

Ms. MARBURGER. That is actually not a program in the Department of Education.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, it is a BIA program.

Ms. MARBURGER. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. It was eliminated, right? The Johnson O’Malley

program was eliminated under the President’s budget request.

Right?

Mr. CASON. Mr. Chairman, I might help out. That is in the BIA

budget and yes, that program was zeroed out. The discussions that

we have had internally to the administration is the belief that

overall that duplicated other efforts to supply funding to public

schools and that as a matter of tradeoffs, that did not appear to

be as high a priority as maintaining the core of BIA’s education

programs. So that did end up being a tradeoff.
16

The CHAIRMAN. The committee, Ms. Marburger, has received testimony that No Child Left Behind has imposed accountability

standards without sufficient funding to meet those standards. It indicates approximately $1 billion in direct support is available for

Indians and Alaska Natives in this year’s proposed budget.

Will this funding enable Indian students to bridge those achievement gaps in BIA-funded and local schools with significant student

populations to meet the requirements of No Child Left Behind?

Ms. MARBURGER. That is exactly what our budget is targeted to

do. I think that one of the very positive aspects of that is the

money that we are requesting specifically for SEA’s and school and

district improvement. For the first time, we will be providing

money to them to help them provide the technical assistance at the

local level to target their interventions and to really take a close

look at how students are achieving so that they can tailor their

program to better meet the needs of students.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Cabrera, do you know what the backlog is

for Indian housing?

Mr. CABRERA. Mr. Chairman, just for a point of clarification,

backlog in what respect? In terms of units?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; or money.

Mr. CABRERA. I don’t think we have any study right now that

tells us what the backlog in terms of construction might be. We do

have enormous amounts of progress in terms of 184’s. So there has

been a lot of demand for mortgages in Indian country over the last

2 years.

The CHAIRMAN. But you don’t have a handle on what the requirement for Indian housing is in Indian country that is outstanding?

Mr. CABRERA. Most of the grants that are provided for Indian

housing have a nexus to homeownership. Those, it is not so much

grants, as the loan guarantees. So really what we measure is the

number of units that are purchased by Native Americans in Indian

country, and for that matter Native Hawaiians. In that respect, in

the last couple of years, we have had an increase on the order of

60 percent over previously utilized numbers.

The CHAIRMAN. For the record, maybe you could provide us with

that information.

Mr. CABRERA. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Schofield, last year Congress appropriated

funding in the Department of Justice budget to build one new Indian detention facility. The NCAI will testify that there is an immediate need to build at least 15 new detention facilities in order

to address the ongoing detention facility crisis in Indian country,

and it is a crisis. What is your response to that?

Ms. SCHOFIELD. I am aware that there is about $7 million left

in that fund, and Senator, that is not enough money to build any

new facilities. What I would like to do with the remaining funds

is to make sure that we are providing some type of architectural

and design specifications for tribes so that we can get the money

out the door. But quite frankly, unless there is a lot more money

put into the pot, you are not going to be able to build any new facilities.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I would hope that you would request that

additional money, Ms. Schofield.
17

Senator Dorgan.

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

Ms. Schofield, as I understand it, in the Department of Justice

you have taken tribal courts, tribal prison construction, tribal alcohol programs, tribal youth programs and zeroed them out, increased the tribal COPS program to $31.1 million, rolled it all into

a block grant, and said you have more flexibility, right? Is that

what you have done?

Ms. SCHOFIELD. Well, no, sir, we have not eliminated those programs. What we have done is requested a $31.1-million so that

OJP and COPS can work together into streamlining all of those

grants so that we can address more pressing needs. Previously,

that money has been available only for law enforcement. If we are

allowed to put together the $31.1-million as requested by the President, that money can be made available for meeting more pressing

needs in Indian Country, and you can also move beyond hiring just

law enforcement and move into helping build and improve on court

operations, hiring judicial officials, and prosecutors.

Senator DORGAN. But last year, we funded those programs at $46

million. This year you are making $31 million available. Is that

correct?

Ms. SCHOFIELD. Sir, I am not familiar with last year’s budget.

Senator DORGAN. Well, the tribal courts, last year $7.9 million,

and zeroed out this year; tribal prison construction $8.9 million and

zeroed out this year; tribal alcohol $4.9 million and zeroed out this

year. So as I add these up, last year we spent about $46 million.

This year we will spent $31.1 million with more flexibility. That is

not streamlining. That is a pretty significant cut in law enforcement areas, in my judgment. Wouldn’t you agree?

Ms. SCHOFIELD. Well, I would hope that in one of the things I

learned in previous positions in the Federal Government is the

ability to have more grants at Indian country’s disposal as opposed

to sending people to one stream of funding. So my personal priority

is to make sure that we are making sure that the tribes can tap

into all sorts of funding availabilities at the Department of Justice.

Senator DORGAN. I don’t understand that, because the area

where they would tap into funding would be where we have appropriated money, and in the next panel we are going to have Mr.

Garcia testify, the National Congress of American Indians, saying,

‘‘tribal leaders have consistently identified law enforcement, justice

and homeland security as key concerns in the 2007 budget.’’

My only point is that I have traveled to many reservations, law

enforcement is a serious issue, a significant problem. It looks to me

like you are taking $46 million and turning it into $31 million, and

portraying it to us as streamlining. It appears to me that is a very

serious problem if you are trying to deal with law enforcement

issues on reservations.

If you don’t mind, I will submit some additional questions on

that. I just think these law enforcement issues have to be adequately funded, and we will hear more from the next panel.

Let me ask Dr. Grim, what would it cost for us to provide sufficient funding so that we are staying even on health care costs for

Native Americans in this coming fiscal year?
18

Mr. GRIM. We think the current budget proposal does that. We

have money in every appropriate line item with either the medical

inflator or the nonmedical inflator. We have increases for population growth. We have been seeing increases in our users annually

and there is money in there for that. We have full payout costs for

tribal and Federal programs. So we feel like the current budget is

a budget that does just what you said, and in fact with the increased population growth funds, we feel that we will be able to

serve 30,000 more beneficiaries this next year.

Senator DORGAN. Well, would I be wrong to say that we are serving somewhere in the area of 60 percent to 65 percent of the existing need for American Indians with respect to health care?

Mr. GRIM. That number comes from an internal study that we

did, and used as a funding methodology for one of the line items

that we have, the Indian Health Care Improvement Fund, that

sometimes is funded. It was not funded in 2006, but we use that

methodology, compared it against the Federal Employees Health

Benefit package as a comparative analysis so that we would have

something to judge all of our programs against. That figure comes

from that, and we use that methodology internally for budget distribution.

Senator DORGAN. So we are funding somewhere around 60 percent to 65 percent. That means somewhere between 40 percent and

35 percent of the health care issues for Native Americans is unmet

at this point. Would that be accurate?

Mr. GRIM. Relative to this one comparator.

Senator DORGAN. Well, if you make a comparison and come up

with that number, that is the number. Is it reasonably accurate to

say that 40 percent to 35 percent of the health care needs are

unmet?

All right. My view of this submission is there is an increase to

be sure, but as I look at this it appears to me the increase is somewhere just over 2 percent and again we will have testimony in the

next panel, and I will refer to it in just 1 moment, suggesting that

in order to just stay even, to maintain existing health care services

and restore loss of buying power, meet the needs of the increased

population, you would have to be requesting an increase of $485

million to existing services. Do you disagree with that?

Mr. GRIM. Yes, sir; the budget increase for the agency this year

is a 4.1-percent increase, and because of the reductions that we

noted on the facility side and the urban program side, when you

net it out, it is actually a much higher increase than the $124-million, and all primarily directed at the health services side of the

budget, as well as environmental health and engineering the sanitation facilities increases that were noted earlier.

So in a deficit reduction year of budgets, it is I think a very

strong budget and one that does keep pace with the inflationary

and population growth increases.

Senator DORGAN. Yes; well, this is not a deficit reduction budget

in every area. There are some areas that are treated very generously.

First of all, let me say that I am pleased that these have not

been cut. I am pleased there is an increase, but I would note that

I think we are far short of serving the need that we are required
19

to serve, and I think with contract health and other issues, we are

going to have to really think through with the Budget Committee

what we do here.

You know and I know that we have circumstances with the contract health area where it is a life and limb description. That is the

only way you get that service, if you are threatened with loss of life

and limb.

Let me ask Ms. Marburger with respect to tribal colleges. My understanding is that we provide Federal support for tribal colleges

at about half the rate of Federal support that goes to community

colleges per student. Do you have any information about that?

Ms. MARBURGER. I would like to ask my colleague.

Mr. CORWIN. Senator, I am Thomas Corwin from the Department’s Budget Service. We do not have a standard program of support for community colleges, so I don’t think we would have data

to back up that statement.

Senator DORGAN. I am going to send you a question about that

because I have seen comparisons about support for students at

community colleges through the various Federal programs and support that exists for those who go to tribal colleges. It is about

roughly 50 percent to 60 percent. So I am going to send you some

questions about that and see if we can get some information about

it.

I would like to finally ask Mr. Cason, if I could, you had a requirement to pay attorneys fees, I believe, with respect to the trust

settlement. The Department of the Interior had a requirement to

pay attorneys fees and I think it was in the neighborhood of $5.7

million?

Mr. CASON. $7.066 million.

Senator DORGAN. And you paid those attorneys fees out of Indian

program funds, which include, there is an obligation, I believe, in

Indian program funds that is for the payment of those costs, but

the Office of Special Trustee has a litigation cost fund for Cobell

litigation that is part of the Office of Trust Records’ budget. My understanding there is money in that, but that was not used for it.

Instead, the money came out of Indian program funds. Is that correct? If so, why?

Mr. CASON. That is correct. There are two things that are important. Firs, the department has a couple of pots of money that are

used for managing the day-to-day activities of the Cobell litigation.

Between the commitments we have in the Department of the Interior and the commitments that we pay for at the Department of

Justice, we are actually short on those funds just to manage dayto-day Cobell costs.

When we got the judgment from Judge Lamberth to pay $7.066

million in attorneys fees under EAJA, the Equal Access to Justice

Act, we were told that we could not take those funds from the judgment fund and that they had to come out of program funds. We

looked at a wide variety of alternatives to pay those funds and in

the end of that process basically I made the decisions for the department to try to spread the impact across a number of programs

to minimize the impact on any one single program.

Ross in the OST Program contributed some money into the process, BIA did, the Office of Historical Trust Accounting did. We got
20

a big chunk of money from the Department of Treasury. So what

we attempted to do was spread the impact, the adverse impact on

the Sunplant expense across a number of programs so that no one

program would be hurt terribly.

Senator DORGAN. I am going to send you some additional questions about that. I do not want to spend a lot of time on it.

Let me just finally, Mr. Chairman, say this. I have, as I have

said and I am sure members of the committee have all traveled extensively to Indian reservations, and I have been to many parts of

the world and seen substantial amounts of poverty. I have stood at

City Soleil in Port-au-Prince, Haiti, and many parts of the world,

and have seen very substantial poverty and difficulty.

I think all of us, you on the panel and those on the committee,

understand that you can go to parts of this country and think that

you are on a completely different continent, in the midst of enormous poverty, people living in conditions that are really, really

tough.

So we have this hearing and it sounds just like reasonable

things, you know, we are streamlining this, we are changing that,

we are making a few adjustments here or there. Let me again, Mr.

Chairman, say I think we have a full-blown crisis in a number of

areas in this country, particularly dealing with Native Americans,

particularly dealing with children and the elderly, with respect to

housing, education and health care. I do not think that just nibbling around the edges on these issues really does the job very

much.

If I were, and I think if most members of this committee were

tribal Chairs trying to figure out how you meet these needs with

the resources that exist, it is probably not just tough. It is probably

impossible.

So I hope that we can pole-vault over some of these notions of

just inching forward in some areas and seeing if we can’t do a

quantum leap in trying to address what are some serious human

problems that desperately call out for resources. There are other

areas in our budget that get lots and lots and lots of resources. We

will get $120 billion request very soon, emergency, none of it paid

for, that will add up to somewhere over $300 billion in total. We

will do that just like that. But God forbid it should be for the

health and welfare of Indian children or others living in conditions

of extreme poverty.

I am proud to serve on this committee and proud to serve with

some colleagues that care a great deal about this as well. I hope

that all of us can understand the urgency of it and begin to make

some real progress.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Thomas.

Senator THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Cason, it is a number of agencies involved in this budget,

correct?

Mr. CASON. Yes.

Senator THOMAS. I do not have a total here. What is the total

of the budget for Indian activities?

Mr. CASON. Within the Department of the Interior?

Senator THOMAS. No; the total.

Mr. CASON. Across Government?
21

Senator THOMAS. Yes.

Mr. CASON. What I am told is that it is in the order of $11 billion, if you add up all the programs in the various agencies we

have here.

Senator THOMAS. $11 billion.

Mr. CASON. Yes.

Senator THOMAS. And do you know how that compares with last

year?

Mr. CASON. I don’t.

Senator THOMAS. I guess if there is an agency that has some

oversight or some, at least not oversight necessarily, but coordination, it would be your agency. Isn’t that correct?

Mr. CASON. We do attempt to do that. Dr. Grim and I have

worked together, the Department of Education and I have worked

together. We are commonly working with the Department of Justice on our programs. So I think there is a fair amount of coordination that goes on between the agencies, albeit we have different

missions.

Senator THOMAS. Yes; I guess I have to say I am a little surprised to see the budget broken down. I understand there are different agencies, but it would seem to me there would be some good

reason to have a total overview of it among all the agencies so that

the total end-game points toward the priorities of needs within the

Indian country. Do you agree with that?

Mr. CASON. That sounds reasonable.

Senator THOMAS. I just am a little surprised at the diversity that

there is in terms of putting the budget together. Is there any oversight? Does anybody kind of have an overview of what the priorities are in general, and then how that impacts the total? Or does

everyone just kind of do their own thing?

Mr. CASON. Well, my impression about that coordination point

would be the Office of Management and Budget, because all of our

budgets basically stream through OMB, and that is where I have

received my figures about the overall Indian budget. So I think

OMB is taking a look at all the various parts.

Senator THOMAS. I understand the numbers. I am talking about

the activities. I am talking about looking into the future and dealing with some of the things Mr. Dorgan talked about in terms of

changing some fo the social problems in the Indian country, and

how the budget ought to be doing that, rather than just making it

a mathematic operation. That is just the view I have, and it seems

to me it is kind of important.

I don’t know. Who does energy things among you? Anyone?

Mr. CASON. We do have energy programs within the BIA. As the

trustee for the 56 million acres under our care, the Government’s

care, we have energy mineral programs on that land.

Senator THOMAS. Do you have some activities with regard to the

budget there in terms, for instance, of developing the opportunities

for energy development to help the tribes financially?

Mr. CASON. Yes; we do. We actually went through a process during this year to move the Energy and Minerals Program under the

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Economic Development so that we

could highlight the potential for energy and minerals to provide

economic development opportunity for tribes. We are going through
22

a process right now of working with the tribes to identify the best

potential energy and mineral deposits on Indian country that are

potentially developable and then we would work with industry for

those the tribes want to develop to see if we can get industry interest in those.

Senator THOMAS. Good. I hope so. Again, it seems to me we

ought to be giving a little more emphasis, a little more focus on the

future and what is going to happen on the tribal lands and with

the tribes, rather than just this year’s needs. One of the real opportunities, at least on some of the reservations, is the development

of energy facilities which would be very economically helpful.

Over in education, you talked some about junior colleges and so

on. Are those primarily, do you work with the surrounding regular

community colleges for Indian programs in them? Or are you oriented to Indian schools separately?

Ms. MARBURGER. We do have programs that support tribal colleges and universities.

Senator THOMAS. What does that mean, tribal colleges and universities?

Ms. MARBURGER. These are colleges that actually support——

Senator THOMAS. Exclusively tribal?

Ms. MARBURGER. I do not know if they have a mission to others,

but they are focused specifically on serving the tribes, yes.

Senator THOMAS. The smaller reservations are not going to have

those specifically. There are not enough people involved so you

have to work with the surrounding communities. I guess that is my

interest. And you do that?

Ms. MARBURGER. I do not know of our activities in that area, but

I would be happy to get back to you with regard to that.

Senator THOMAS. I wish you would please.

[Information follows:]

TRIBALLY CONTROLLED COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES

The Strengthening Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities [TCCU’s] program is authorized under Title III, Part A, Section 316 of the Higher Education Act

of 1965, as amended. The program awards discretionary grants that enable TCCU’s

to improve and expand their capacity to serve American Indian students. Applicants

are limited to tribal colleges and universities—defined as such by section 2 of the

Tribally Controlled College or University Assistance Act of 1978-plus any institution

listed in the Equity in Educational Land Grant Status Act of 1994. There are 32

federally recognized Tribal Colleges and Universities in the United States. Most of

the TCCU’s are 2-year schools. Located mainly in the Midwest and Southwest, Tribal Colleges and Universities offer 2-year associate degrees in over 200 disciplines

with some providing a bachelor’s and master’s degree. They also offer 200 vocational

certificate programs.

Institutions may use their funds to plan, develop, and implement activities that

encourage: faculty and academic program development; improvement in fund and

administrative management; construction and maintenance of instructional facilities, including purchase or rental of telecommunications technology equipment and

services; student services; or the establishment of a program of teacher education

with a particular emphasis on qualifying students to teach Indian children. In addition, TCCU’s may use their funds to establish community outreach programs that

encourage Indian elementary and secondary school students to develop the academic

skills and interest to pursue postsecondary education.

Senator THOMAS. Dr. Grim, finally, you mentioned something

about eliminating funding for Indian Affairs?

Mr. GRIM. For the Urban Indian Health Programs.
23

Senator THOMAS. Oh, urban.

Mr. GRIM. Yes, sir.

Senator THOMAS. Because there is $3 billion in the budget for Indian Affairs.

Mr. GRIM. I said overall we had a net 4.1-percent increase, but

there were two reductions over 2006 enacted budget for us. One of

them was in health care facilities at a minus $20 million for 2006

enacted, and the Urban Indian Health Program at minus $32 million. That was a redirection of those resources.

Senator THOMAS. I see. I misunderstood what you said.

Mr. GRIM. It was a component that is approximately 1 percent

of our budget that funded 34 grants to urban Indian health organizations that did anywhere from outreach and referral sorts of services to ambulatory care services in different communities around

the Nation, urban communities.

Senator THOMAS. There is an increase in Indian Health Service,

correct?

Mr. GRIM. Yes, sir.

Senator THOMAS. How much is that?

Mr. GRIM. $124 million net over 2006, so 4.1 percent. But if you

factor out the two decreases that make it net, it adds back in another $50 million as well, again, going to the health services side

for the tribes’ reservation clinics and hospitals, and also to environmental health and sanitation activities.

Senator THOMAS. Okay. Fine, thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Murkowski.

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Schofield, have you had an opportunity to familiarize yourself with the Alaska Rural Justice Commission report? This was a

report that came out last year, a collaborative effort amongst Alaska Natives and those on the law enforcement side just looking at

the issues specific to the State and Alaska’s natives and how we

might deal with some of the enforcement issues?

Ms. SCHOFIELD. No, Senator; I have not, but I will.

Senator MURKOWSKI. Okay. We will make sure that we have a

copy sent over to your office. After you have had a chance to look

at it, I welcome the opportunity to sit down with you and discuss

some of what you are doing with your program, and what some of

the challenges we are facing up north would be. So I would look

forward to that.

Mr. Cabrera, I know you and I have been trying to set up a time

for you to visit the State to understand better some of our housing

needs as they relate to our rural villages with our Alaska Natives.

We will be working with you to set that date. I think it is important that you have an opportunity to see first-hand some of the

challenges that we experience, and I am looking forward to doing

that with you.

Again, Ms. Marburger, I will extend the invitation to Secretary

Spellings. When Secretary Paige made the trip up, we were successful in kind of sitting together with not only Secretary Paige,

but the Secretary of Health and Social Services, the HUD Secretary, in discussing what we called at that time the Alaska

Project. You mentioned in your comments that there are significant
24

risk factors that face our Indian students, our Alaska Native students.

We learned that it is not just about delivering education within

the four walls of the classroom. There are other factors, whether

it is the extremely high incidence of FAS, the domestic violence,

the sanitation issues that lead to the health care concerns, the

housing issues, when you have the principal of the school living in

the broom closet there in the school. These were factors that kind

of all go into the education component. So I would like to re-start

those discussions again at that higher level, if we can do that. It

would be important to have the Secretary’s input on that.

Dr. Grim, you mentioned, and I mentioned in my opening comments, the facilities construction budget and where we are. You

have indicated that the way going forward is more of a treatment

versus infrastructure approach. But as you know, because you have

visited my State on so many different occasions, when you are hundreds and hundreds of air miles away and thousands of dollars in

transportation costs away from the infrastructure, it is really difficult to talk about treatment.

My question to you is, as far as the Barrow and Nome projects

go, recognizing that they are number one and number two on that

list, how is the Administration’s proposal going to affect those

plans going forward?

Mr. GRIM. I would point out that you are correct. They are on

the priority list. They are the next in line and they are of sufficient

size that in this particular year’s budget and in the focuses that we

have, that we put a hold on them until out-years. But they are still

a priority. We are working with the tribal corporations, both our

headquarters staff and our area office staff up there, and we continue to work with them on A&E design work. They are in the

process of getting ready to procure the property.

So it was an issue of hard choices, as I said, but they are on the

list and they are one of the next ones up.

Senator MURKOWSKI. They understand that, and they have been

told that, as you know, for a number of years. So I need to know.

What do I tell my constituents up there in Barrow, up there in

Nome? Are we on or are we not on? You have given me the signal

that yes, we are moving forward with the preliminaries, and I am

pleased to know that that remains in process, but I also want them

to understand that there is a timeline that they can look forward

to.

So as we move forward with that, I would ask for your very

frank communication and truly a commitment to progress on these

very, very important projects to us.

Mr. Cason, last year we passed the Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration Act. This was intended to complete the conveyance of lands

from the Federal government that were due the State of Alaska,

as well as our Alaska Native corporations and the allotment applicants. The whole goal of this legislation was to complete these

transfers by the 50th anniversary of statehood, which is coming up

in just a few short years.

In order to complete these conveyances, we have got to have adjudication of the Native allotment applications. I need to know
25

whether the department believes that with this budget they have

the sufficient resources to do the job.

Mr. CASON. Senator, it is my understanding that the conveyances

that are being done are managed by the Bureau of Land Management. I have had briefing papers from Henri Bisson, the State Director for BLM on that subject. As I recall, he anticipates it will

take several years and is building that into the BLM budgets, but

I do not know exactly what their budget is for that purpose, but

it is on his radar screen.

Senator MURKOWSKI. Okay, we will ask that question in the Energy Committee as well.

Can you explain to me why the BIA is not proposing the renewal

of the grant? This is a $349,000 grant to Alaska Legal Services to

support the Native Allotment Program. Again, this is the entity

that is doing the processing of these applications, and apparently

that was zeroed out.

Mr. CASON. That would be one of the smaller programs that I

mentioned earlier in my opening statement, that the principal responsibilities for carrying out the Native Allotment selection process and conveyances is within BLM, and that we played a secondary role. As we went through and prioritized our budget, we basically looked at all of the programs that were secondary and tertiary

programs, and they were the first ones on the block to give tradeoffs for our core programs and maintaining the integrity of those.

So it would be my suggestion that that is what happened. In that

case, the BLM had the principal responsibility for it.

Senator MURKOWSKI. Well, we will be talking with BLM on that.

Mr. Grim, one more question for you. This is one that you know

I bring up regularly. This relates to the sanitation facilities construction in Alaska. You know what the needs are. You have seen

first-hand. Tomorrow, I am going to have an opportunity in the Environment and Public Works Committee to speak to the Administrator of EPA, Steve Johnson, about the cuts and the reductions in

the Village Safe Water Funding.

As we know, when we are talking about the health needs of Alaska Natives, it comes down to some of the very, very basic things

that you and I take for grant. As Senator Dorgan has mentioned,

you can go to some of the communities in Alaska and really feel

like you are back in a third world country. We are not talking

about flush toilets. We are talking about hauling the human waste

down a wooden boardwalk, slopping this stuff all over, and putting

it into a lagoon.

I need to again have your commitment reiterated on this issue,

that when we are talking about meeting the health care needs, we

have to address the sanitation issues and that facilities construction.

Mr. GRIM. You have my commitment. It is a strong component

of our program. You did see a $1.8 million increase in it, again reflective of the increased costs of providing services so that we can

at least stay where we were this past year.

We hope to go further. As you know, that program is one of our

stronger programs about using other dollars, too. During fiscal year

2005, we were able to bring in from other resources about 42 cents
26

on the dollar of our budget, working with tribes and with other

Federal agencies, for sanitation facilities for Indian communities.

I have been to a number of your communities up there that still

lack some of those very basic resources. I will commit to work with

you and to see what we can do about that.

Senator MURKOWSKI. Well, we are making some headway, but we

do need that continued commitment to make the difference.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

I thank the witnesses for coming today and appreciate it.

The next panel is Joseph Garcia, who is the president of the National Congress of American Indians. Kathleen Kitcheyan is a

member of the board of directors of the National Indian Health

Board and chairwoman of the San Carlos Apache Tribal Council.

Ryan Wilson is the president of the National Indian Education Association. Cheryl Parish is the secretary and board member of the

National American Indian Housing Council. And Gary Edwards is

the chief executive officer of the National Native American Law

Enforcement Association.

President Garcia, we will begin with you. Please proceed. I will

repeat, your complete written statements will be made part of the

record. Please proceed.

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH A. GARCIA, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL

CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS

Mr. GARCIA. Thank you, Chairman McCain and Vice Chairman

Dorgan, for the invitation to appear before the Senate Committee

on Indian Affairs today, and present the views of the National Congress of American Indians on the Administration’s fiscal year 2007

budget request for Indian programs.

This is my first opportunity to speak publicly with this committee at president of NCAI. I would like to say how much the member tribes of NCAI appreciate your service. Chairman McCain, it

is an incredible honor for Indian Country to have your leadership

in this committee. And Vice Chairman Dorgan, we are very proud

of your service to Indian country.

As Congress shapes this budget, NCAI urges you to include the

priorities of Indian country, namely the promotion of strong Indian

families in a safe, secure and self-reliant Native America. We are

sovereign, independent, self-sustaining nations. Our mandated relationship with the U.S. Government puts us in a precarious position. Our success is dependent to a large extent on the Government’s respect for tribal rights to self-determination and self-sufficiency.

NCAI’s Budget Task Force consulted national tribal organizations, the BIA Tribal Budget Advisory Council, and tribal leaders.

We have identified the following areas for meaningful Federal investment in Indian country: public safety, health care, education,

and self-determination programs such as contract support. Tribes

have proven time and time again that we are a good Federal investment.

Through the exercise of our inherent self-governing powers,

tribes are able to contract and compact Federal programs for the

benefit of both Indian and surrounding communities. Today, tribes
27

operate one-third of IHS clinics. Tribes are the most accountable

for their own resources, services and members, and have demonstrated resounding successes in recent years.

The roots of success, where do these lie? Indian country has solutions for closing the educational achievement gap based on the values and lessons of our cultures, as evidenced by the achievements

of culturally appropriate approaches. Academic studies show that

Indian children flourish when their classroom experiences are built

on our tradition, languages and culture.

In 1994, the Alaska Rural Systemic Initiative began connecting

students with elders in the community and creating a passion for

learning by showing students how to explore science and history in

light of their cultural heritage. Over a 10-year period, student performance went up, test scores improved, and dropout rates declined.

Indian Head Start also has played a major role in native communities. This comprehensive program integrating education, health

and family services has laid the foundation for many of today’s

tribal leaders. However, only about 16 percent of the age-eligible

Indian child population is enrolled in Indian Head Start. Mr.

Chairman, Mr. Vice Chairman, this is not acceptable.

Tribes, though, have also stepped up to address the border security issues and the eradication of meth. The Tohono-O’odham Nation’s 71-member police force is the first in frontline emergency and

law enforcement responders to deal with the 1,500-per-day traffic

of undocumented immigrants and drug traffickers who cross the

vast and vulnerable border. They expend about $10 million of their

own resources to get this done.

The nation is also compelled to provide health care or make other

arrangements for the illegal immigrants found either dead or neardead in the desert, and has absorbed the burden of cleaning up the

six tons of trash littered on this reservation daily due to the immense illegal immigration. The nation has undertaken these activities to protect the homeland with almost no homeland security

funding.

Many reservations innovatively manage their forests under the

principles of adaptive ecosystem management, with increasing

quality and quantity of tribal forest management staff. On the

White Mountain Apache Reservation, forest tending and field reduction activities stopped the events of the huge Rodeo-Chediski

Forest fire. After the fire, the tribe and BIA quickly and successfully salvaged much of the logs from the burnt-over lands, using

helicopter logging in the post-fire burn and area emergency recovery activities on the reservation. That drew national attention for

the effectiveness.

Tribal government, just like State and municipal governments,

provide critical services, shape values and promote jobs and

growth. Low Federal spending for Indians has lost ground, compared with spending for the U.S. population at large. Tribal selfgovernance has proved that Federal investment in tribes pays off.

Between 1990 and 2000, income rose by one-third and the poverty rate declined by 7 percent. A Harvard study showed that these

gains occur with or without gaming. Tribal governments have

worked hard to put laws in place that promote economic activity,
28

and Indian reservations are the next opportunity for the American

economy.

But this is only the very beginning. Real per capita income of Indians living on reservations is still less than one-half that of the

national average. Unemployment is still double what it is for the

rest of the country. The poorest counties in the United States are

on tribal lands. So we still have yet to join the success of the rest

of the Nation.

The success of Indian country in self-governing and managing

the resources warrant continued Federal investment in tribal selfdetermination. We are concerned that this year’s budget request reduces effective funding for tribal priorities. NCAI urges Congress

to honor its commitments to Indian nations and provide tribes with

the necessary tools for continued progress through the promise of

strong tribal self-government.

We ask that these recommendations be taken more closely to

heart as the fiscal year 2007 budget advances. First, tribal leaders

have consistently identified law enforcement, justice and homeland

security as key concerns in the fiscal year 2007 budget. A primary

role of tribal government is to ensure the security and safety of Indian communities and families, tribal lands and resources, and the

United States through law enforcement, detention and strong judicial systems. Our written testimony outlines the critical link Indian

country plays in securing our lands and our country. Through significant, but incremental increases over several years, Indian country public safety programs can reach adequate funding levels.

NCAI supports sustained 8 percent to 10 percent annual increases in the Interior Department and Justice Department Indian

country public safety programs for fiscal year 2007 through fiscal

year 2009. NCAI also supports a special funding initiative to build

the next 15 Indian country detention facilities.

Second, poor health continues to inhibit the economic, educational and social development of all of Indian country. American

Indians and Alaska Natives receive life or limb service under current conditions, meaning funds are only available to treat the most

life-threatening illnesses. NCAI urges Congress to fund IHS at a

level to at least maintain existing health services and to restore

loss of buying power.

We also oppose the zeroing-out of the Urban Indian Health Program. Urban Indian Health provides a critical link in the health

care chain that cannot afford to be broken and cannot be replaced

by other health services.

Third, NCAI encourages this Committee to invest in Indian education through support of native languages, Indian Head Start,

tribal colleges and restoring the Johnson O’Malley Program in BIA.

Finally, self-determination programs throughout the budget. Initiatives this Administration has expressed consistent support for

are critical to tribes’ ability to effectively assume local control. Contract support costs, tribal priority allocations, 638 pay cost increases, and the administrative cost grants, all support Indian selfdetermination.

NCAI commends the requested increase for BIA indirect contract

support for fiscal year 2007. Failing to fully reimburse contract

support costs in the Indian Health Services effectively penalizes
29

tribes for exercising their self-determination rights. It forces cuts to

tribal programs in order to cover the shortfall and leads to partial

termination of the Federal Government’s trust responsibility. As a

matter of Federal contracting principle, tribal contractors, like all

other government contractors, should be promptly paid in full. We

encourage Congress to fully fund contract support this year and in

the future.

Finally, as you know, there are dozens of specific budget recommendations in our written testimony that we do not have time

to discuss at this time. NCAI realizes Congress must make difficult

budget choices this year. As elected officials, tribal leaders certainly

understand the competing priorities that you must weigh over the

coming months. However, the United States Government’s trust relationship remains unchanged, as well as Indian country’s proven

success in addressing the needs and concerns of our communities,

which makes tribes a good investment for the Federal Government.

Thank you for the time and the opportunity.

[Prepared statement of Mr. Garcia appears in appendix.]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

Kathleen Kitcheyan. Welcome.

STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN KITCHEYAN, MEMBER, BOARD OF

DIRECTORS, NATIONAL INDIAN HEALTH BOARD, AND

CHAIRWOMAN, SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBAL COUNCIL

Ms. KITCHEYAN. Thank you, Senator.

Chairman McCain, Vice Chairman Dorgan and distinguished

members of the committee. Thank you for inviting the National Indian Health Board to testify on the President’s 2007 budget recommendations for American Indians and Alaska Native Health

Care.

Mr. Chairman, Vice Chairman Dorgan, thank you for your leadership in the move to reauthorize the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. It has been 14 years since it has been updated, and we

need to achieve this. NIHB and Indian country stand with you and

will work together with you to achieve it.

The President’s budget request for fiscal year 2007 proposes an

increase of about 4 percent for IHS. We know these are difficult

budget times in America and know it is not easy to find the increase, but Mr. Chairman, that does not quite amount to status

quo and we cannot continue at less than status quo for Indian people.

Status quo is a life 6 years shorter than any other American

group, being 318 percent more likely to die from diabetes, and 670

percent more likely to die from alcoholism. It is 63 babies born in

my tribe last year addicted to crystal meth. And this is just one

tribe. Imagine the rest. Nationally, Indian country is under attack

from crystal meth and we must aggressively address this starting

in this budget cycle.

Furthermore, it is 120 suicide attempts and 84 actual suicides

since 2002 in my tribe alone. Nationally, it is that our youth are

twice as likely to commit suicide and nearly 75 percent of all suicide acts in Indian country involve alcohol. I would like to acknowledge you, Senator Dorgan, for your efforts on this issue.
30

We request a financial and policy commitment from Congress to

help America’s native people begin to achieve true progress in

changing the reality of inferior health care known to us. A 10-percent increase over current funding levels would be evidence of that

commitment. We will be working with Congress during this appropriations cycle to increase funding for IHS by 10 percent over fiscal

year 2006 appropriated levels. The budget request meets about 60

percent of documented need, and 10 percent is a modest increase. We request $200 million for the Well-Indian Nations Initiative to

undertake disease prevention and health promotion activities in Indian country. This includes mental health services and outreach

programs. We request $90 million over the current request in order

to assure that contract support costs obligations will be met. According to IHS figures, an additional $60 million will be needed to

reach this year’s contractual commitments.

We request the end of the 1-year pause of 2006. The President’s 2007 budget cuts another $20 million from the health facilities construction program. This is in addition to the $85.2 million cut for

2006 that nearly ended the program and was called a 1-year pause.

That funding year is over. Let’s end this pause and provide $88.5

million to the facilities programs.

As Senator McCain knows, in Arizona we have projects on the

priority list at Red Mesa, Kayenta, and San Carlos, and it is imperative that we complete these projects. Senator Murkowski also

mentioned that for Barrow and Nome, AK.

Finally, we strongly support the continuation of Urban Indian

Health Programs and request a funding increase for them. HHS

needs to have tribal consultation before any policy decisions are

made to close the urban Indian clinics. This is consistent with current consultation practice and policy. According to the last census,

more than one-half of American Indians live in urban areas. Tens

of thousands are getting their health care through urban clinics.

The Government assumption that American Indians and Alaska

Natives will seek health care from community health centers is

based on nothing. There are no studies, no facts and no information. You don’t know what is going to happen to these people. We

think that they will return to their reservations or communities to

seek health care, but there is no funding request for the tribes to

care for them. We must have tribal consultation before this is even

considered.

In the richest, most powerful country in the world, a country

whose very foundation quite literally sits on American Indian

homeland that was largely traded for guarantees of peace and

health care, among other things, we can do better. We must. Our

Indian people need hope. Funding will bring us hope, a chance at

life, a healthy life.

Mr. Chairman, there is so much more that should be discussed

here. I have tried to highlight the most critical areas and I also request that my written comments be added into the record.

Thank you and God bless you.

[Prepared statement of Ms. Kitcheyan appears in appendix.]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Without objection, your full statement will be part of the record.

Mr. Wilson, welcome.
31

STATEMENT OF RYAN WILSON, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL INDIAN

EDUCATION ASSOCIATION

Mr. WILSON. Chairman McCain, Vice Chairman Dorgan, Senator

Akaka, members of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, we

thank you for this opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of the

National Indian Education Association with regard to the President’s fiscal year 2007 budget request.

I also would like to summarize my written testimony and ask

that be submitted into the record.

Indian education programs are constantly funded at the minimum level established by Congress, never the maximum level. The

Federal Government has not upheld its legal or moral obligation to

provide sufficient funding for the education of Native American

students. President Bush’s budget proposes a $3.1-billion or 5.5-

percent decrease for education spending, leaving $54 billion in total

discretionary appropriations for the Department of Education. This

is the first decrease in education spending since 1994.

Within the Department of Education budget, none of the programs specifically for Native American students received an increase. Rather, the majority of the programs of the native students

received level funding from fiscal year 2006. This results in a de

facto decrease when factored into the rate of inflation. Inadequately

funding native education programs will diminish, if not undo, the

progress that has been made.

Chairman McCain and Vice Chairman Dorgan and other members of the committee, I want to call your attention to the charts

that the National Indian Education Association brought here. We

wish to dramatize what inflation does actually when level funding

happens. As you heard from the first panel, they actually expressed

that we were successful with our budget because it was flat-funded

or level-funded. That is absolutely incorrect. We are receiving brutal decreases here when the cumulative effect is over the course of

the last several years.

One chart shows from 2003 to 2005, that is the total Indian education funding in both the BIA, the Department of Education and

HHS.

I would also like to call your attention to the BIA construction

funding. You heard from Assistant Secretary Cason about the

progress that has been made in BIA education funding. We respectfully disagree. The backlog is becoming a first-class crisis and

again our young people are attending second-class schools at rates

that it should never happen here in America.

The President on his web page showcased the Santa Fe Indian

School as a model for the BIA school construction. We would like

to challenge that every Indian child in America should go to such

a school, with beautiful architecture and beautiful state-of-the-art

facilities like that. So we would like those charts to be witnessed

by you. We thank you for that.

Native American language funding, you heard from the President

of the National Congress of American Indians that this is a priority. Through a survey done by the National Indian Education Association and Dr. William Demmer, we have established that there

are only 20 Indian languages that are spoken by Indian children

throughout America. We have roughly 100 surviving languages
32

now out of more than 300 that were here at the beginning of contact. Simple math tells us that by the year 2050, that is what we

will be down to is those 20 languages. We are prioritizing this and

NIEA requests that $6 million be increased into the fiscal year

2007 for the Administration to support: No. 1, existing Native

American immersion schools and programs through a competitive

grant process; and No. 2, the development effort for new immersion

schools and programs through the competitive grant process.

We also ask for $400,000 to enable NIEA to have data collection

and a study to perform the effectiveness of Native American immersion schools. In fiscal year 2004, 2005, and 2006, ANA received

$44 million, but less than $4 million went to actual Native American language programs, and out of that less than 10 percent went

to actual cultivation of Native American languages.

We also strongly support the legislation introduced by Senator

Inouye in the 108th Congress, S. 575, that strengthens the current

Native American Language Act and looks forward to reintroduction

of this legislation.

Again, I touched on school construction. NIEA requests a $56-

million increase from the fiscal year 2006 enacted level of $206 million for a total of $263 million. The fiscal year 2007 budget request

for school construction and repair is only $157 million, while the

fiscal year 2006 enacted level funding for BIA school construction

and repair was $206 million.

Despite the President’s budget request for fiscal year 2006 to significantly reduce this funding in fiscal year 2007, the enacted funding level was $263 million, which was instrumental in reducing the

construction and repair backlog. As you can see from the inflation

charts, if we take care of this now, it will save us literally millions

and millions of dollars later.

As you have heard from all of the panelists, we, too, care about

Johnson O’Malley. April 16, 1934, this was really the first fundamental and significant commitment from Congress to fund Indian education. So this act has historical implications. NIEA at our

legislative summit heard yesterday from an official from the Department of Education, Office of Indian Education, that it does not

duplicate services of title VII or title I. So we, too, recommend full

funding of JOM and actually an increase, which would bring it to

$17.2 million.

Moving into title VII funding, due to the tight Federal budget for

this year, NIEA requests a moderate 5-percent increase to $9.3 million, for a total of $195 million in fiscal year 2007 for NCLB title

VII funding for American Indian, Native Hawaiian, and Alaska Native education.

We would also like to talk a little bit about the President’s 2007

budget request for Indian education, Alaska Native Education equity, which calls for level funding, and a request for education of

Native Hawaiians is reduced by 8 percent. We oppose this. Despite

the fact that NIEA and native educators have been asking for 5

percent increases in all native education program funding, Indian

education program funding remains the same level as fiscal year

2006 at $118 million, and down from fiscal year 2005 and 2004 and

2003 despite our increased needs.
33

So the needs of Indian country are increasing, and the resources

that are being allocated to us are decreasing. This is a fundamental

concern to Indian country and the National Indian Education Association.

Mr. Chairman, I also respectfully seek permission to submit the

National Indian Education Association legislative summit packet to

this committee, as a matter of the Congressional Record, and we

will be available for questions as well.

[Prepared statement of Mr. Wilson appears in appendix.]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Without objection, that

study will be made part of the record.

Ms. Parish, welcome.

STATEMENT OF CHERYL PARISH, SECRETARY AND BOARD

MEMBER, NATIONAL AMERICAN INDIAN HOUSING COUNCIL,

ACCOMPANIED BY GARY GORDON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Ms. PARISH. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chairman McCain, Vice Chairman Dorgan,

members of the committee. My name is Cheryl Parish. I am

pleased to appear before you today as Secretary of the National

American Indian Housing Council.

On behalf of NIHC, its membership, and board of directors, I

would like to thank you for this opportunity to address you today

on the President’s budget request for fiscal year 2007 as it relates

to Indian housing and housing-related community development.

First, though, I want to express our gratitude to you and your

capable staff for your committee’s longstanding support for our efforts to provide safe, decent and affordable housing for native people.

Mr. Chairman, this committee does need to be reminded of the

dire economic and social conditions on Indian reservations and native communities in Alaska and Hawaii. It seems that others in

Congress and elsewhere do not have a firm grasp on the situation.

Accordingly, I will reiterate that Native Americans are three times

more likely to live in overcrowded housing than any other Americans. Native Americans are more likely to lack basic sewage and

water systems, telephone lines, and electricity than any other

American.

I challenge our friends in the press who have a never-ending appetite to write about gaming and Indian-rich tribes, to go and visit

the poor, the rural tribes of the Great Plains, the great Navajo Nation, and the remote native villages in bush Alaska, to see that in

2006 poverty still has an Indian face. In the 2007 budget request, the President seeks $625.7 million

for our NAHASDA block grant program. In addition, unlike the fiscal year 2006 request, the President proposes to preserve our

ICDBG in a larger community development fund and seeks to fund

it with $57.4 million. Taken together, level funding or a funding

level that is slightly less than the previous year’s amount, coupled

with inflation and a strong and growing demand for housing in the

native community, means that fewer homes will be built using Federal funds.

Since the enactment of NAHASDA in 1996, this committee has

continually shown unwavering support for tribal housing programs
34

and the people that they serve. While money is not the answer to

all problems, building houses and related infrastructure is one area

that is dependent on ample funding. To meet the current housing

and infrastructure demands, NIHC estimates that $1.1 billion per

year in funding is needed for the block grant program. A reasonable start for fiscal year 2007 would be $748 million, and the budget request proposes $625.7 million, resulting in a 1-year funding

gap of over $122 million.

In addition to the funding levels, the National American Indian

Housing Council is alarmed that the language changing the housing funding allocation formula is included in the 2007 budget request. The language was included without tribal consultation and

over the strong objection of the National American Indian Housing

Council. In the final fiscal year 2006 appropriation, it was inserted

in there. The language deals with the need portion for housing

funding a calculated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and it requires interpretation by HUD of the responses

to tribal members in the 2000 decennial census in calculating the

tribe’s relative need portion for housing assistance.

The National American Indian Housing Council has constantly

taken the position that this matter is properly one for the authorizing committees of the Congress, tribes and HUD. NIHC urges the

Committee to wrest control of this matter from the appropriators

and pledges our support for discussions on these matters with this

committee and its sister committees.

NIHC is not solely interested in Federal grants to build Indian

homes. We see a future in providing homes for ourselves in the

same manner that all citizens of this country help themselves to

purchase homes through the use of mortgage financing, including

Title VI and 184. We are encouraged to see that the President has

remained committed to both of these loan programs through level

funding of Title VI and the tripling of the 184 program.

CDBG is also important for tribes in developing physical infrastructure and related economic opportunities. We also believe that

it should be funded at least at the inflation-adjusted level of $77

million and to be kept as a separate account.

The President has again proposed reducing the technical assistance funding in NAHASDA 2007, by eliminating both the NAHBG

set-aside and the Indian community development set-aside. Our

technical assistance programs through the National American Indian Housing Council are a very important part to our Indian

housing programs. What we have done with these in 2005, we have

done over 246 site visits. We have offered 38 free training classes.

We offer cutting-edge training programs.

The one very highly participated and needed basically is the

training on the methamphetamine problem, which is plaguing tribal housing programs. We have expanded our home buyer education

programs and provided over 751 scholarships to 220 tribes, totaling

over $807,000.

We conduct one major research project annually and our prior research focused on infrastructure. The infrastructure study led to

the creation of a task group including multiple Federal agencies

and resulted in an MOU currently in the signature phase under
35

the agencies to improve cooperation and coordination with the development of Indian country infrastructure.

We believe that our track record of success and our promise in assisting tribes in the future warrants funding of $5 million in

2007 for technical assistance, but only if NAHASDA and ICDG programs are fully funded.

I would like to thank you again for your longstanding support.

We look forward to working with you in the next congressional session.

[Prepared statement of Ms. Parish appears in appendix.]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

Mr. Edwards, welcome.

STATEMENT OF GARY EDWARDS, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,

NATIONAL NATIVE AMERICAN LAW ENFORCEMENT

ASSOCIATION

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chairman, distinguished members of the

committee, tribal leaders and tribal elders, it is an honor for me

to be here today and speak to you regarding the President’s 2007

proposed budget for Indian programs. I am the chief executive officer of the National Native American Law Enforcement Association.

We have been in existence since 1993. Our membership is made up

of men and women, Indian and non-Indian, law enforcement and

non-law enforcement, because we believe that everyone within a

community needs a voice to have a good law enforcement experience in any community.

We are a public service organization focused primarily on public

safety. As we look at the President’s 2007 budget, a maxim comes

to mind from President Abraham Lincoln, which is worthy of consideration. He said, ‘‘I walk slowly, but I never walk backward.’’

Historically, American Indians have been made to walk slowly in

their pursuit of equality in public safety, health care, detention,

education and so forth. With each step, and as by the wisdom of

President Lincoln, progress has been achieved, although much

progress is still needed.

NNALEA is concerned that the President’s fiscal 2007 budget request for Indian programs, if approved in its current form, may result in regression of progress with regard to American Indian public safety, health, education, self-governance and self-determination.

For the remainder of my comments, I will speak with regard to

public safety issues in Indian country.

The most pressing Indian country public safety issues of today

are the loss of the COPS grants. It is a crisis in Indian country.

From 1999 until the present, approximately 1,800 new law enforcement jobs have been created in Indian country. Between the years

of 2004 and 2006, approximately 759 of those officer grants have

expired. This is a devastating reduction to an already limited number of tribal law enforcement officers in Indian country.

It is also a devastating effect on our national economy. The

United States has invested capital in developing Indian country

law enforcement. We have worked hard to integrate people within

the Indian community that represents the community while enforc-
36

ing the local laws and the national laws as well. As we look at this

investment, the average investment per officer amounts to

$100,000 for 3 years in the placement of the officer, his equipment,

training and technical assistance.

By way of example, the Pine Ridge Reservation currently has 86

sworn tribal law enforcement officers. It serves 41,000 residents on

2.1 million acres of land. The Pine Ridge ratio of officer to resident

is approximately two for 1,000 residents, and one officer for 24,400

acres of land. On March 31, 2006, the Pine Ridge Police Department is poised to lose 59 of their 86 police officers due to

sunsetting COPS grants. That will reduce their service to the resident officer population to one in 1,000, and their coverage of 77,700

acres per officer. This will also represent a $5.9 million loss in invested capital by

the U.S. Government in providing law enforcement services to this

particular reservation. Pine Ridge officers, the 59, the economy

does not present opportunities for them to be able to take their

families and have other jobs on that reservation, so probably they

will have to leave that reservation in pursuit of their law enforcement careers. This is not an isolated example of the situation that

we currently face in Indian country law enforcement.

Commendably, the President’s 2007 budget request for Indian programs increases the BIA budget by $4.5 million. But that

amount is not enough to maintain the current law enforcement activity on a daily basis in Indian country when you compare it to

the 759 law enforcement officers that are missing from working in

these crime areas where it is the most dangerous job in law enforcement.

There needs to be a 2007 budget line item that provides an addi- tional $15 million either to the Department of Justice COPS grant

program or to the BIA Office of Law Enforcement Service to help

sustain these losses of law enforcement personnel on tribal reservations.

A new formula with a quality-of-life index needs to be developed

for calculating Indian country public safety staffing levels which

sets a baseline for minimum tribal law enforcement staffing levels

for each tribal community. Funding should be based upon this formula.

The second major problem facing Indian country law enforcement

today in public safety is the rise of methamphetamine abuse and

violent crime in Indian country. Indian communities continue to be

decimated by illegal drugs and alcohol abuse. Statistics suggest

that approximately 85 percent to 90 percent of crime in Indian

country derives from some form of illegal substance or alcohol

abuse.

As with many non-tribal communities, tribal law enforcement officials have noted the growing trend of drug abuse in Indian communities is connected to methamphetamine. A prime example of

this was made apparent by the United States Attorney for the District of Arizona in his press release of August 30, 2005. He said:

While methamphetamine use and distribution is not unique to Indian country, the

use of methamphetamine within the Indian communities of Arizona has had a profound effect. A large percentage of violent crimes prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney’s

office involved individuals under the influence of methamphetamine or other illegal

substances. It is our sincere hope and belief that reducing the availability of meth-
37

amphetamine within these communities will also bring a reduction in the number

of violent crimes. It is a fight that we simply cannot afford to lose.

And I certainly echo what he said. It is a fight that we cannot

afford to lose.

Add to that increased gang activities, which are rampant in

many tribal communities, and it makes a little more clear picture

of what devastation the loss of these law enforcement officers working in tribal communities is going to have with regard to the safety

and security of our citizens.

Commendably, the President’s 2007 budget designates the HHS to have $25 million in funding for a methamphetamine initiative.

I hope Indian country is included within that initiative.

The third area of major concern in Indian country public safety

is detention in Indian country. A 1997 report by the Department

of the Interior and by the Department of Justice laid out the needs

for funding to improve detention in Indian country, so this is not

new. This is not something that just came on the scene. They said

that you needed funding for operations, this is back in 1997, including staff, equipment, supplies, facilities including maintenance

and renovation and new construction, inspection and oversight,

training and technical assistance. Most of the jails in Indian country are old and unsafe. And 80 percent of funding needed for jails

has to go to staffing of those people needed to operate and run

those jails efficiently and effectively.

Our worst fears were brought to light when the Department of

the Interior’s Inspector General wrote the report, Neither Safe Nor

Secure. Today, we look at the 2007 budget proposal for Indian

country and we see that $8.6 million in DOJ Indian country prison

grants were done away with, while DOI commits $8.1 million for

four major facilities improvements and repair projects, and several

smaller projects.

Currently, this last year we have closed four Indian detention facilities. We anticipate closing a fifth one within the very near future. If we are going to build four and we have already closed five,

we are way behind the game. I suggest that this $8.6 million for

DOJ grants for tribal detention facilities be reincluded in the budget for DOJ.

The last major concern currently on people’s minds in Indian

country is tribal homeland security. The foundation of homeland

security is quality community law enforcement and effective, efficient, timely emergency services in the time of a crisis.

To have that foundation built for homeland security, you need to

basically have four capabilities available. You need to have an

operational emergency plan in place that is compliant and compatible with Federal, tribal, State, and local homeland security plans.

You need to possess the human, cyber, physical resources necessary to carryout the mission of law enforcement emergency service professionals during a crisis, according to the respective emergency plans.

And you must possess interoperable communications and you

must possess the capability to share intelligence and information

up and down the national intelligence networks.

Some tribes may possess a few of these basic four homeland security foundation principles and capabilities, but most do not.
38

NNALEA advocates direct funding to tribes from all Federal departments. The Department of Homeland Security currently directs

all funding through States. There are some notable examples of

States and tribes working together to utilize homeland security dollars to build tribal communities’ and contiguous local counties’

homeland security preparedness even across multi-State lines. For the President’s 2007 budget, we suggest that $250,000 be set

aside for every State that has a tribe or Indian nation within that

State to help them with regard to homeland security planning

grants, because planning is the first phase of developing these four

capabilities necessary.

In conclusion, a public safety crisis exists in Indian communities

with regard to the loss of law enforcement officers and resources

in Indian country, the rise of methamphetamine abuse and violent

crime in Indian country, the timeliness of tribal detention improvements, and tribal inclusion in the homeland security funding initiatives.

Although NNALEA understands the difficult choices that must

be made with regard to the fiscal year 2007 budget, NNALEA respectfully requests that Native Americans not be made to walk

backward with regard to public safety. In the words of the great

Sioux Chief Sitting Bull, ‘‘Let us put our minds together and see

what kind of future we can build for our children.’’

I am happy to answer any questions you may have.

[Prepared statement of Mr. Edwards appears in appendix.]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

President Garcia, why do you want such a big increase in the

BIA budget for Indian forests and forest management?

Mr. GARCIA. Thank you for the question, Senator. It is important

to realize that there is not an equal funding for Indian forest lands

compared to U.S. forest lands. It is important to understand also

that as the Indian nations are emerging and are developing in

their management, if the funds are not available to have an adequate infrastructure for management in place, then devastation

may occur because of that ill-preparedness. So the funds are provided to help with developing the infrastructure and developing the

management systems, it is imperative that the funding be there.

The CHAIRMAN. And with the drought that we are now back into

in the Southwest, this could really be something. As you know in

Arizona, we have already started the forest fires.

Mr. GARCIA. It is the same up in the Northwest and out through

Alaska, that if we don’t control the forest lands, and keep them in

tune with as far as dealing with Mother Nature, we will see devastation. Also, there are forest units firefighting units that have been

cut out of the picture. There is not a mention of that in the testimony, but that is the case throughout Indian country.

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Kitcheyan, the budget request proposes to

de-fund the Urban Indian Health Program. Did the department

discuss this proposal with the tribes during your annual consultations?

Ms. KITCHEYAN. Sir, I was at a Phoenix-area meeting in Las

Vegas and there were a couple of representatives from the urban

health clinics, and they said that there was no consultation.

The CHAIRMAN. None?
39

Ms. KITCHEYAN. None.

The CHAIRMAN. So in an urban area like Phoenix, AZ or Albuquerque, NM or other States, maybe Denver, CO, this is huge, isn’t

it?

Ms. KITCHEYAN. Yes; absolutely. It is very huge. If we lose them,

it will be very detrimental for those people that live in the cities.

You know, they flock to the cities for employment and education

and that was a policy of the Federal Government which was to assimilate them. That is kind of what they are doing.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I think it is also interesting that I don’t believe there was a commensurate increase in funding for community

health centers.

Ms. KITCHEYAN. That is true, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

I think it is one of those, as I mentioned in my opening statement, that a proposed cut in programs that they know that Congress will restore the funding for, at least I hope that is the case

here.

Mr. Wilson, elimination of Johnson O’Malley, you say that Johnson O’Malley does not duplicate other programs. The Department

of the Interior has expressed concerns that the program does not

have a focused goal for academic achievement. How does the Johnson O’Malley Program directly relate to academic achievement?

Mr. WILSON. Well, as I said, chairman, we respectfully disagree

with the BIA’ justification. I think the House of Representatives

also agreed with us as they submitted in their report. They did not

interpret that in the same way as the White House did last year

when it was zeroed out. This historical context of JOM is very important to Indian country.

As I said, this act happened in 1934. When we seek scientific

data to say how many young people have stayed in school for that

or what was their academic progress, it is a difficult situation because there has never been funding to actually study that. What

we are saying as tribes and as advocates for tribal opinions, is that

they have identified this as a major concern. Our constituency, you

know, they really value this particular program. I think to put a

human face on it, I wonder sometimes because it is so flexible in

its use, and it was designed originally for the educational, the medical relief of distress, and also the social welfare of Indians, it is

hard to pinpoint that.

I wonder, would someone like Billy Mills have tennis shoes without JOM back then? We just had a beautiful young girl graduate

from Red Cloud School in Pine Ridge named Joelle Janis, who became a Gates Millennia Scholar. I wonder how do you quantify that

support from JOM that helped her in her life and where she is

going on into higher education. There are thousands and thousands

of young people like that that have been affected by JOM.

So I just respectfully answer your question that way.

The CHAIRMAN. Do me a favor, will you, and give me a written

statement about the benefits and the focus of Johnson O’Malley.

Mr. WILSON. Absolutely.

The CHAIRMAN. I would appreciate it. Thank you very much.

Mr. WILSON. Thank you.
40

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Parish, I understand there is billions of dollars of backlog in the requirement for sanitation infrastructure

needs in Indian homes. How big is that, would you estimate?

Ms. PARISH. $1.9 billion, minimum.

The CHAIRMAN. $1.9 billion. And how would you go about ad- dressing this issue, besides appropriating $1.9 billion?

Ms. PARISH. Excuse me for 1 second, sir.

If you wouldn’t mind, sir, this is my director right here.

The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead.

Ms. PARISH. He is working also with Mr. Hartz.

The CHAIRMAN. Just identify yourself, sir.

Mr. GORDON. Yes, sir; my name is Gary Gordon. I am the executive director of the National American Indian Housing Council.

A couple of years ago, we did a research study. One of our annual projects under our NAHASDA funding is to conduct major research on an item affecting housing in Indian country. We focused

on infrastructure and the need for infrastructure and the problems

with developing the infrastructure. Part of the outcome of that was

the development or the reestablishment of a task group which was

a multi-Federal agency, multi-tribal task group, to identify the

problems and how to correct those problems.

There is a MOU, memorandum of understanding, that has been

developed and has been circulated among the agencies to work together for that purpose to identify how we can better utilize the

dollars that are available, how we can identify additional sources

of funding, and how we can streamline the process so that we can

indeed build more infrastructure in Indian country so that we can

put more housing out there. And not only housing, too, but other

economic development which will support the housing, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you send that to the committee so that we

can have the benefit of that study?

Mr. GORDON. Yes, sir; we will.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Ms. Parish.

Mr. Edwards, talk to me for 1 minute about methamphetamine

and the seriousness of the crisis in Indian country. What is being

done and how bad is it getting?

Mr. EDWARDS. It is getting worse on an hourly basis, primarily.

It seemed to come in the Northern Plains and we had the largest

impact in the Northern Plains area. There have been some major

cases. There are multi-State cases where people actually approached the Indian communities as a business, realizing that we

had some problems with substance abuse.

So therefore, they made small amounts of the meth and gave it

to the kids. To Indian people, it is extremely addictive. From that,

they married into the families and just started conducting a business. That was in Wyoming.

Then from that investigation, there was like six different States

involving arrests across a border, and one of the brothers who

started that particular business-type enterprise was sent to prison

for life.

From there, from the Northern Plains, the meth problems in Indian country have evolved down to California, then out over into

Oklahoma and then over into North Carolina. I was shocked be-
41

cause I am from the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians when I

found out on Friday the 13th of this year that a young girl who

used to be in the Native American Boys and Girls Club on the reservation was found shot dead with her hands tied behind her back,

with her head blown off. It was a matter relating to methamphetamine was the word that everybody is hearing. It was a ganglandstyle murder from possibly a gang out of Mexico.

A short time before that in the latter part of last year, another

child from that reservation had all of his fingers cut off before they

killed him. Again, that was from that same type of issue.

This is something that affects Native American communities I

think more than any other communities within America. And it is

not contained on Indian country. It comes usually outside the reservations onto the reservations and then splashes back. A lot of our

tribal leaders, and I try to call and poll a lot of different chiefs of

police and everything, say that if we don’t get a grasp on this, it

will totally wipe out a generation of our children for the future.

The CHAIRMAN. It is fairly easy to tell someone who is an addict,

isn’t it?

Mr. EDWARDS. Yes, sir; extremely, because of the effects that

methamphetamine has on the body. When I was talking to some

of the people out in the field, we talked about, well, how do you

know that it is meth, or is it just some other type of substance

abuse? They said usually it is a combination of the two. From the

substance abuse, people get to partying and they have a good time,

and then all of a sudden their body gets tired. And so they want

to go and rest and sleep. That has been the general modus operandi of that. But then someone then will introduce meth and say,

hey, we don’t need to go home; we can just take this and you will

be feeling good. And they will go for days, but their bodies still

don’t forget all the sleep deprivation that they have, and their

aging process is enormously quick.

The CHAIRMAN. That leads to a lot of child neglect and abuse?

Mr. EDWARDS. It certainly does. The interesting thing about it,

too, is that it mostly deals with property crimes. There are some

violent outbreaks, but usually the violence in Indian country as it

is associated with this is in combination with other types of illegal

substances.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I think, you know, Senator Dorgan has

been very involved in the teen suicide issue. I don’t think it is

unconnected with some of that. Perhaps we ought to have another

hearing on it and find out, because as you say, Indian country is

most vulnerable, but non-Indian country is suffering dramatically,

particularly in some rural areas as well. So it is a great challenge.

We thank you, Mr. Edwards.

We thank the panel.

Senator Dorgan.

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

It is the case and I know it especially in the Northern Great

Plains that methamphetamine is a devastating scourge on the population, and especially young people.

I think because of the time, I am going to defer asking questions,

but I did want to make this point. I think having folks come to testify here today, tribal officials and experts dealing with housing
42

and law enforcement, health care, education, is very, very helpful

to us. One of the things I would suggest, as the chairman has on

a couple of occasions, you should feel free to send us supplemental

information because this budget process goes on for a long period

here. Both from the budget standpoint and the appropriations

piece, we are talking about some months. I hope that as you evaluate your needs and as you see what we are doing here in the Congress, you will always feel free to send us supplemental information about what you are seeing and what you believe the needs are.

That is very helpful to us.

Mr. Garcia, you are the new president of the Congress of American Indians. This I believe is perhaps your first time testifying

since you have become president. We congratulate you and look forward to working with your organization.

I know that Tex Hall has been here. Tex is a two-time chairman,

way in the back. I saw Tex come in and he has been working on

these issues as well. He and so many other tribal leaders from all

across this country have made a contribution to the knowledge of

this Committee. We just want to thank him, and I did want to say

hello to Tex Hall.

I thank all of you for coming. I know you have traveled some distance to be with us today, and we appreciate your testimony. I

think it was outstanding. Thank you very much.

[Whereupon, at 4:51 p.m., the committee was adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
(43)

APPENDIX

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL INDIAN HEAD START DIRECTORS

ASSOCIATION

The President has proposed to flat fund the Head Start program at the fiscal year 2006 level of approximately $6.8 billion. Of this amount, according to law, 13 percent is set-aside for priority programs, with Indian Head Start statutorily established in the highest priority and typically receiving 2.8 percent of all Head Start

funds. Unfortunately, and probably illegally, HHS has been diverting large portions

of the priority set-aside to fund non-priority programs. When combined with the effects of inflation, the result of HHS’s dubious conduct and the flat-funding is to severely limit the ability of the Indian Head Start program to serve tribal communities. At most, only 16 percent of the age-eligible Indian child population is enrolled

in Indian Head Start. Of the approximately 555 federally recognized tribes, only 222

have Head Start programs. Needless to say, for the 333 that do not, 0 percent of

the eligible children are served by Indian Head Start.

According to an analysis done by the National Head Start Association, the President’s proposal would likely result in the equivalent of closing enrollment to at least

19,000 children nationwide. For Indian country, this would mean a loss of 499 slots

in a program that now serves approximately 23,374 children. The President’s proposal, if enacted, means that since fiscal year 2002 Head Start would have experienced an 11-percent real cut in Federal funding.

For several years, the National Indian Head Start Directors Association has been

working to increase the size of the Indian Head Start set aside. The Senate Health,

Education, Labor and Pensions Committee has marked up Head Start reauthorization legislation which would increase the Indian Head Start set aside to 4 percent.

The House has passed legislation which would increase the set-aside to 3.5 percent.

Since the Indian Head Start set-aside is currently set administratively by the Department of Health and Human Services, NIHSDA asked HHS if it would follow the

lead of the Congress and increase funding to the Indian Head Start program. HHS

responded that it would not do so. It turns out that HHS has, for a number of years,

inappropriately and probably illegally transferred 3 percent of the Congressionally

mandated 13 percent set aside that funds Indian Head Start and other priority programs to non-priority programs.

The Head Start Act provides that 13 percent of Head Start funding is to be set

aside for five priorities, which are set forth in order of their priority. The first, and

therefore highest priority is funding for Indian Head Start and certain other programs. The next to last priority is for discretionary payments made by the Secretary

of HHS (of which the law provides two examples of such payments, both minor in

nature). Pursuant to this lower priority, HHS has for several years transferred nearly 3 of the 13 percent back to regular Head Start programs.

HHS has effectively reduced the 13 percent set aside to something around 10 percent. To do this, HHS would have had to make a cut in the other four priorities

funded by the set-aside. On a pro rata basis, Indian Head Start should have been

funded at approximately 3.7 percent and not the level established by HHS at ap-
44

proximately 2.9 percent. This means that HHS has reduced Indian Head Start funding by about $50 million per year.

There are solid policy reasons for boosting the Indian Head Start set aside including:

Indian reservations suffer from depression-era economics, with terrible crime and

health statistics to match.

The Indian reservation poverty rate is 31.2 percent, nearly 3 times the national

average of 11.6 percent. As much as an additional 30 percent of the Indian reservation population is only just above the poverty line.

The Indian reservation unemployment rate is approximately 50 percent, 10 times

the national unemployment rate of 5.2 percent (and on some reservations the rate

is 80–90 percent).

Most Indian communities are remotely located and there are no other resources

besides Head Start to address the special needs of young Indian children who daily

must deal with the conditions described above.

Because of these awful conditions:

The high-school dropout rate on reservations is more than 3 times the national

average; The Indian suicide rate is four times greater than the national average;

One in four Indians is an alcoholic by the age of 17. The rate of child abuse or neglect for American Indian or Alaska Natives is twice the rate for the White population. Native American women suffer violent crime at a rate 31⁄2 times greater than

the national average (USDOJ Report). The violent crime rate on some reservations

is six times the national average.

These conditions are toxic to Native children. Indian Head Start is the best Federal program in place that actually addresses the dire situation in much of Indian

country, but more resources are needed.

The Federal Government has a trust responsibility to Indian Peoples, especially

in the education area. In 2004, President Bush signed an executive order on American Indian and Alaska Native Education [E.O. 13336], which specifically recognized

that ‘‘The United States has a unique legal relationship with Indian tribes....’’ The

order was promulgated in part ‘‘to recognize the unique educational and culturally

related academic needs of American Indian and Alaska Native students...’’ President

Bush’s praise-worthy Indian education policy is in sharp contrast to the policy the

Federal Government followed for years summarized by Captain Pratt, a leader in

the establishment of Indian boarding schools: ‘‘A great general has said that the

only good Indian is a dead one, and that high sanction of his destruction has been

an enormous factor in promoting Indian massacres. In a sense, I agree with the sentiment, but only in this: that all the Indian there is in the race should be dead. Kill

the Indian in him, and save the man. ‘‘This Federal effort to kill our minds and our

spirits failed, but not without first doing great damage. Much of the harm inflicted

upon Native peoples is being undone, to the extent it can be undone, by Native people themselves. And yet the resources needed to complete this great task can only

be found with the originator of the harm—the Federal Government.

Both branches of Congress have determined that HHS funding of Indian Head

Start is too low. After extensive review, and site visits, both branches of Congress

have concluded, as described above, that Indian Head Start should receive more

funding than is currently being allocated by HHS.

NIHSDA urges the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs to endorse:

An increase in the Indian Head Start set-aside to 4 percent;

A direction to the Department of Health and Human Services to cease its inappropriate, and probably illegal practice, of transferring large amounts out of the setaside that funds Indian Head Start and other priority programs in order to fund

non-priority programs; and

An increase in overall funding for Head Start by 3.4 percent or higher in order

to keep pace with the actual rate of inflation.

Over the last 40 years, Indian Head Start has played a major role in the education of Indian children and in the efforts by tribes to heal from the wounds of the

past. The results achieved by the Indian Head Start program are truly miraculous,

notwithstanding all the hardships that remain in the Indian community. More than

any other Federal program, the investment in Indian Head Start is an investment

in the future of Indian people. Please support this extraordinary program. Thank

you.
45

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHARLES W. GRIM, D.D.S, M.H.S.A., ASSISTANT SURGEON

GENERAL, DIRECTOR, INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee:

Good Afternoon. I am Dr. Charles W. Grim, Director of the Indian Health Service.

Today I am accompanied by Mr. Robert McSwain, Deputy Director of the IHS, Dr.

Craig Vanderwagen, Acting Chief Medical Officer, and Mr. Gary Hartz, Director,

Environmental Health and Engineering. We are pleased to have the opportunity to

testify on the President’s fiscal year 2007 budget request for the Indian Health

Service.

As part of the Federal Government’s special relationship with tribes, the IHS delivers health services to more than 1.9 million American Indians and Alaska Natives. Individual and public health services are provided in more than 600 health

care facilities located primarily in some of the most remote regions of the United

States. For all of the American Indians and Alaska Natives served by these programs, the IHS is committed to its mission to raise their physical, mental, social,

and spiritual health to the highest level, in partnership with them.

This mission is supported by the Department of Health and Human Services

[HHS] and the IHS budget request reflects that support. To better understand the

conditions in Indian country, senior Department and IHS officials have visited tribal

leaders and Indian reservations in all 12 IHS areas. In addition, I have the pleasure

of serving as the vice chair of the Intradepartmental Council on Native American

Affairs [ICNAA] whose role is to assure coordination across HHS in support of

American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native American health and human services

issues. The Administration takes seriously its commitment to honor the unique legal

relationship with, and responsibility to, eligible American Indians and Alaska Natives by providing effective health care services.

Through the Government’s longstanding support of Indian health care, the IHS,

in partnership with the people we serve, have demonstrated the ability to effectively

utilize available resources to improve the health status of American Indians and

Alaska Natives. The clearest example of this is the drop in mortality rates over the

past few decades. More recently, this effectiveness has been demonstrated by the

programs’ success in achieving their annual performance targets as well as by the

intermediate outcomes of the Special Diabetes Program for Indians. IHS programs

have received favorable ratings through the Office of Management and Budget’s

Program Assessment Rating Tool [PART]. Some programs’ PART scores are among

the highest in the Federal Government.

Although we are very pleased with these achievements, we recognize that there

is still progress to be made. American Indian and Alaska Native mortality rates for

alcoholism, tuberculosis, motor vehicle crashes, diabetes, unintentional injuries,

homicide, and suicide are higher than the mortality rates for other Americans.

Many of the health problems contributing to these higher mortality rates are behavioral. For example, the rate of violence for American Indian and Alaska Native

youth aged 12–17 is 65 percent greater than the national rate for youth.

The IHS and our stakeholders remain resolved and deeply committed to address

these disparities. As partners with the IHS in delivering needed health care to

American Indians and Alaska Natives, these stakeholders participate in formulating

the budget request and annual performance plan. The Department holds annual

budget consultation sessions, both regionally and nationally, to give Indian tribes

opportunities to present their budget priorities and recommendations to the Department. This year during the budget consultation process tribal leaders provided us

with what continue to be their top priorities—pay costs, increases in the cost of providing health care, and population growth. I am pleased to say that this budget, like

the budget I presented last year, responds to those priorities by including the increases necessary to assure that the current level of services for American Indians

and Alaska Natives is maintained in fiscal year 2007 and that new services associated with the growing American Indian and Alaska Native population are covered.

The President’s budget request for the IHS totals $4.0 billion, a net increase of

$124.5 million or 3.2 percent above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. The request

will allow IHS and tribal health programs to maintain access to health care by providing $41.4 million to fund pay raises for Federal and tribal employees, and $92.7

million to cover increases in the cost of delivering health care and to address the

growing American Indian and Alaska Native population. Staffing and operating

costs for four newly constructed health centers are also included in the amount of

$32.2 million. Once they are fully operational, these facilities will increase the number of primary care provider visits that can be provided at these sites by 81 percent

and allow the provision of new services such as 24-hour emergency room, optometry,
46

physical therapy, and audiology services. The request also includes additional funding of $11 million for the IHS costs for implementing the HHS Unified Financial

Management System. This system is being implemented to replace five legacy accounting systems currently used across the HHS operating divisions. The UFMS

will integrate the Department’s financial management structure and provide HHS

leaders with a more timely and coordinated view of critical financial management

information.

To target these priority increases, the budget request eliminates funding for the

Urban Indian Health Programs and reduces funding for Health Care Facilities Construction by $20.1 million. Unlike Indian people living in isolated rural areas, urban

Indians can receive health care through a wide variety of Federal, State, and local

providers. One health care provider available to low-income urban Americans is the

Health Resources and Services Administration’s Health Centers program which currently operates in all of the cities served by the Urban Health program and in hundreds of other cities where Indian people live. The budget requests, $2.0 billion for

Health Centers in fiscal year 2007, allowing it to serve 1.5 million more urban

Americans than it served in fiscal year 2004. The request for Health Care Facilities

Construction is $17.7 million, sufficient to complete the construction of the Phoenix

Indian Medical Center’s Southwest Ambulatory Care Center. Since fiscal year 2001,

a total of $364 million has been provided to complete 12 IHS health facilities. Consistent across HHS, no funds are requested in fiscal year 2007 to initiate new construction.

The proposed budget that I have just described provides a continued investment

in the maintenance and support of the IHS and tribal public health system to provide access to high quality medical and preventive services as a means of improving

health status. It reflects a continued Federal commitment to American Indians and

Alaska Natives.

Thank you for this opportunity to present the President’s fiscal year 2007 budget

request for the IHS. We are pleased to answer any questions that you may have.
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223

Æ

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) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

00–000 PDF 2006

S. HRG. 109–000

NOMINATION

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

S. 000

CONFIRMATION HEARING OF THE NOMINEE

FEBRUARY 00, 2006

WASHINGTON, DC

(
COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

JOHN McCAIN, Arizona, Chairman

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota, Vice Chairman

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming

GORDON SMITH, Oregon

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska

MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina

TOM COBURN, M.D., Oklahoma

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington

JOHN TAHSUDA, III, Majority Staff Director

SARA G. GARLAND, Minority Staff Director

(II)
(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

S. 000, text of ...........................................................................................................

Statements:

APPENDIX

Prepared statements:

Additional material submitted for the record: