U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

65-117 PDF 2011

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF FEDERAL 

SPENDING ON NATIVE AMERICAN 

PROGRAMS AND THE PRESIDENT’S 

FY 2012 BUDGET REQUEST FOR 

THE BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 

AND THE OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL 

TRUSTEE FOR AMERICAN INDIANS 

OVERSIGHT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INDIAN AND 

ALASKA NATIVE AFFAIRS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

Tuesday, March 8, 2011 

Serial No. 112-6 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

or 

Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, MA, Ranking Democrat Member 

Don Young, AK 

John J. Duncan, Jr., TN 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Rob Bishop, UT 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Paul C. Broun, GA 

John Fleming, LA 

Mike Coffman, CO 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Jeff Denham, CA 

Dan Benishek, MI 

David Rivera, FL 

Jeff Duncan, SC 

Scott R. Tipton, CO 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Kristi L. Noem, SD 

Steve Southerland II, FL 

Bill Flores, TX 

Andy Harris, MD 

Jeffrey M. Landry, LA 

Charles J. ‘‘Chuck’’ Fleischmann, TN 

Jon Runyan, NJ 

Bill Johnson, OH 

Dale E. Kildee, MI 

Peter A. DeFazio, OR 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, AS 

Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Rush D. Holt, NJ 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, AZ 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Jim Costa, CA 

Dan Boren, OK 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Martin Heinrich, NM 

Ben Ray Luja ́n, NM 

John P. Sarbanes, MD 

Betty Sutton, OH 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR 

John Garamendi, CA 

Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI 

Vacancy 

Todd Young, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel 

Jeffrey Duncan, Democrat Staff Director 

Rick Healy, Democrat Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE AFFAIRS 

DON YOUNG, AK, Chairman 

DAN BOREN, OK, Ranking Democrat Member 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Jeff Denham, CA 

Dan Benishek, MI 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Kristi L. Noem, SD 

Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio 

Dale E. Kildee, MI 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, AS 

Ben Ray Luja ́n, NM 

Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI 

Edward J. Markey, MA, ex officio 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Tuesday, March 8, 2011 .............................................................. 1 

Statement of Members: 

Boren, Hon. Dan, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Oklahoma ...................................................................................................... 3 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 4 

Gosar, Hon. Paul A., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Arizona, Prepared statement of ................................................................... 18 

Young, Hon. Don, the Representative in Congress for the State of Alaska 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 2 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Echo Hawk, Larry, Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, U.S. Department 

of the Interior ................................................................................................ 5 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 7 

Joseph, Ray A., Principal Deputy Special Trustee for American Indians, 

U.S. Department of the Interior .................................................................. 11 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 13 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON ‘‘THE EFFECTIVENESS OF FEDERAL SPENDING ON NATIVE 

AMERICAN PROGRAMS, AND ON THE 

PRESIDENT’S FY 2012 BUDGET REQUEST 

FOR THE BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND 

THE OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL TRUSTEE 

FOR AMERICAN INDIANS.’’ 

Tuesday,, March 8, 2011 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:00 a.m. in Room 

1334, Longworth House Office Building, The Honorable Don Young 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Young, McClintock, Denham, Gosar, 

Labrador, Kildee, Pallone, Boren, Luja ́n, and Hanabusa. 

Mr. YOUNG. The Committee will come to order. 

The Chairman notes the presence of a quorum. The Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs is meeting today to 

hear testimony on the effectiveness of Federal spending on Native 

American programs, and on the President’s Fiscal Year 2012 request for the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Office of the Special 

Trustee for American Indians. 

Under Committee Rule 4[f], opening statements are limited to 

the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, so we 

can hear from my witnesses more quickly. However, I ask unanimous consent to include other Members’ opening statements in the 

hearing record if submitted to the clerk by the end of business 

today. Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

Also, I don’t see him here, but later on I ask unanimous consent 

that the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone, may be allowed 

to join us on the dais. Without objection, so ordered. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DON YOUNG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA 

Mr. YOUNG. Today, the newly established Subcommittee on 

Indian and Alaska Native Affairs meets at its first hearing of the 

112th Congress. The purpose of today’s hearing is to review the 

2 

President’s Fiscal Year 2012 budget request for Native American 

programs administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and by the 

Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians. 

In this hearing, the Subcommittee intends to review the effectiveness of Federal spending on programs concerning recognizing 

Indian tribes. Today the government borrows money at the same 

time that it imposes obstacles for creation of new wealth, such as 

through the administration of the oil and gas leases on the Outer 

Continental Shelf. As a result, jobs are destroyed and the power of 

the dollar gets weaker and weaker. 

Indian tribes and individual Indians own about 56 million acres 

of land held in trust. In my State of Alaska, another 44 million 

acres of land is owned by the Alaska Native Corporations. That is 

a total of 100 million acres of land, the size of California. Together 

these lands contain abundant resources of conventional renewable 

energy and hard rock minerals and aggregates, and timber, farming, grazing, fish and wildlife resources. 

So, through responsible development of these resources tribes 

and individual Indians are well positioned to provide good jobs to 

tribal members and revenue for the tribal governments. It can also 

restore the manufacturing base of America that has been lost to 

the recent radical expansion of government regulations. The problem is outdated Federal policies stand in the way of tribal development and their resources. Examples are abundant, but a recent one 

that comes to mind is when this government denied an Indian tribe 

with 50 percent unemployment from building a new power plant, 

all in the name of pleasing the special interests. 

The one goal of the hearing today is to examine whether or not 

the budget requested by the President reflects the policy of Congress to promote genuine tribal self-determination, not the kind of 

self-determination defined by special interests. Another purpose of 

today’s hearing is the question of budget priorities the President 

has as Congress faces the unavoidable task of reducing the government’s massive deficit and debt. 

As we attack the budget deficit, it is imperative for Congress to 

ensure to uphold Indian treaties and solemn promises made to 

tribes through acts of Congress. It also means ensuring money is 

spent wisely and effectively for these purposes, not waste it on 

things like excessive attorney fees and Indian claim settlements. In 

this effort, it is my intent to work on a bipartisan basis with my 

colleagues on the Committee, and to work with the Administration 

to ensure the government is properly consulting with Indian Country to ensure the budget choices made by the House work for the 

benefit of American Indians. 

With that, I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Young follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Don Young, Chairman, 

Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs 

Today the newly established Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs 

meets in its first hearing of the 112th Congress. The purpose of today’s hearing is 

to review the President’s fiscal year 2012 budget request for Native American programs administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and by the Office of the Special 

Trustee for American Indians. In this hearing, the Subcommittee intends to review 

the effectiveness of federal spending on programs concerning recognized Indian 

tribes. 

3 

Today, the government borrows money at the same time as it imposes obstacles 

to the creation of new wealth, such as through the Administration’s inaction on oil 

and gas leasing in the Outer Continental Shelf. As a result, less jobs are created, 

and the power of the dollar gets weaker and weaker. Fewer places in America feel 

the effects of America’s decline in the production of new wealth and in the strength 

of the dollar, than Indian Country. 

Indian tribes and individual Indians own about 56 million acres of land held in 

trust. In my state of Alaska, another 44 million acres of land are owned in fee by 

Alaska Native Corporations. 

Together these lands contain abundant resources in conventional and renewable 

energy, in hard rock minerals and aggregates, and in timber, farming, grazing, and 

fish and wildlife resources. Through responsible development of these resources, 

tribes and individual Indians are well-positioned to provide good jobs to tribal members and revenues to tribal governments. They can also help restore the manufacturing base of America that has been lost through the recent, radical expansion of 

government regulation. 

The problem is that outdated federal policies stand in the way of tribal development of their resources. Examples are abundant, but a recent one that comes to 

mind was when this government denied an Indian tribe with 50 percent unemployment from building a new power plant—all in the name of pleasing special interests. 

One goal of today’s hearing is to examine whether or not the budget request of 

the President reflects the policy of Congress to promote genuine tribal self-determination, not the kind of self-determination as defined by special interests. 

Another purpose of today’s hearing is to question the budget priorities of the 

President as Congress faces the unavoidable task of reducing the government’s massive deficit and debt. 

As we attack the budget deficit, it is imperative for Congress to ensure it upholds 

its end in treaties and solemn promises made to tribes through Acts of Congress. 

It also means ensuring money is spent wisely and efficiently for these purposes— 

not wasted on things like excessive attorney fees in Indian Claims settlements. 

In this effort, it is my intent to work on a bipartisan basis with my colleagues 

on the Committee, and to work with the Administration, to ensure the government 

is properly consulting with Indian Country to ensure the budget choices made by 

the House work for the benefit of Native Americans. 

Mr. YOUNG. With that, I now recognize my good friend, Mr. 

Boren, the Ranking Member of this Subcommittee, to make a statement. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DAN BOREN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Mr. BOREN. Thank you, Chairman Young, for holding this hearing today and for your bipartisan communication on this issue and 

many others. I am very encouraged by your willingness to work 

with me and our entire staff of this Committee, and I look forward 

to working with you in the future. 

I want to say a special word about the gentleman to my left, Dale 

Kildee, the champion for Indian Country. Thank you for again allowing me to be in this position, and I look forward to working with 

you as well, Mr. Kildee. 

Finally, I would like to thank the Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

Bureau of Indian Education, and the Office of the Special Trustee 

for American Indians for taking part in the hearing to discuss the 

Fiscal Year 2012 budget and its effect on Indian Country. I am 

very pleased to be part of the newly formed Subcommittee. I think 

it is long overdue. I look forward to finally addressing some of the 

issues facing Native Americans that have been left unresolved. 

There are very many important topics that I hope to uncover 

during the coming months but none of which can move forward 

until the budget is dissected. Looking at the Administration’s proposed budget for 2012, I would like to second Chairman Young’s 

4 

emphasis on tribal sovereignty and the importance of removing the 

Federal Government from their development. We need to build a 

budget that creates jobs and opportunities for tribal nations without creating more bureaucratic regulation. This budget should 

strengthen the programs that allow tribes to act in their own best 

interest. It must also balance responsibilities to ensure every promise we make we can and will keep. With this in mind, there is no 

doubt that sacrifices must be made so that we can get the nation’s 

budget under control. 

I am pleased to see many positive changes in the proposed budget that reflect both the need for cuts while maintaining the integrity of the much needed programs. As a strong believer in the selfdetermination of tribal entities, I am glad to see the budget allows 

for additional funding to provide newly recognized tribes with a 

start-up cost. With 17 Federally recognized tribes in my district, 

many of which are small, Oklahoma will benefit greatly from the 

additional funding for small and needy tribes. 

On the other hand, this budget provides an example of ways to 

cut money with the least impact. For example, the budget cuts 

$450,000 by eliminating excess printing, and another $2.5 million 

was saved by adopting departmental IT deficiencies. These are the 

kind of cuts that need to be made. This is the wasteful spending 

that we all talk about, and these cuts are the way that we can keep 

programs in Indian Country strong while remaining fiscally responsible. Overall, this is a good start. We must, however, maintain focus upon sovereignty and economic development so that our 

Indian communities can continue to grow and to govern. I look forward to discussing with everyone here today how the President’s 

budget can or may address these issues. 

I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Boren follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Dan Boren, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Oklahoma 

Thank you Chairman Young for holding our hearing today and for your bipartisan 

communication on this issue and others. I am very excited about the representation 

we have on this committee and look forward to working with you. 

I would also like to thank Dale Kildee for his continued leadership and efforts on 

the behalf of Native Americans. He is a real champion for Indian Country. I am 

proud to be a part of his team. 

Finally, I’d like to thank the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Indian Education, and the Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians for taking part 

in the hearing to discuss the Fiscal Year 2012 budget and its affect on Indian 

Country. 

I’m very pleased to be a part of this newly-formed subcommittee. It is long overdue. I look forward to finally addressing some of the issues facing Native Americans 

that have been left unresolved. 

There are many very important topics that I hope to uncover the coming months, 

but none of which can move forward until the budget is dissected. 

Looking at the Administration’s proposed budget for 2012, I would like to second 

Chairman Young’s emphasis on tribal sovereignty and the importance of removing 

government from their development. 

We need to build a budget that creates jobs and opportunities for our tribal neighbors without creating more bureaucratic regulation. 

This budget should strengthen the programs that allow tribal nations to act in 

their own best interests. 

It must also balance responsibilities to ensure every promise we make, we can 

and will keep. 

5 

With this in mind, there is no doubt that sacrifices must be made so that we can 

get the nation’s budget under control. 

I’m pleased to see many positive changes in the proposed budget that reflect both 

the need for cuts while maintaining the integrity of much needed programs. 

As a strong believer in the self-determination of tribal entities I am glad to see 

the budget allows for additional funding to provide newly-recognized tribes with the 

start-up costs. 

With 17 federally recognized tribes in my district, many of which are small, Oklahoma will benefit greatly from the additional funding for small and needy tribes. 

On the other hand, this budget provides an example of ways to cut money with the least impact. For example, the budget cut $450,000 by eliminating excess printing. And another $2.5 million was saved by adopting Departmental IT efficiencies. 

These are the kinds of cuts that need to be made. This is the wasteful spending 

we talk about. And these cuts are the way that we can keep programs in Indian 

Country strong while remaining fiscally responsible. 

Overall, this is a good start. We must, however, maintain focus upon sovereignty 

and economic development so that our Indian communities can continue to grow and 

to govern. 

I look forward to discussing with everyone here how the President’s budget can 

or may not address these issues. 

Mr. YOUNG. I thank the gentleman, and with that I will call the 

two witnesses, Larry Echo Hawk. Assistant Secretary for Indian 

Affairs, and Ray Joseph, the Principal Deputy Special Trustee for 

American Indians. 

Welcome both of you. I am sure you have done this before but 

you will be limited to five minutes, but I will tell you that sometimes I am more lenient if you cannot finish your statement at that 

time do so. But answering questions you can, both of you, try to 

make them as concise as possible, and that goes for the questions, 

too, and smack me up alongside the head if I don’t ask concise 

questions, too. You know how the timing lights work. You have five 

minutes, but again, I will be a little lenient, and again, welcome 

to the Committee, and I will start, I believe, with Mr. Echo Hawk. 

And first let me say, Mr. Echo Hawk, I want to thank you for 

going to Alaska. I have spoken to you before about my interests in 

developing legislation that will be beneficial. We expect you, hopefully, will volunteer—this will not be an adversarial position—to 

try to improve the Bureau of Indian Affairs and how it serves its 

constituents. I know you have some suggestions. If you can’t say 

them out loud, you can say them quietly on paper as I know how 

this system works. But my goal in this period of time, and I am 

sure Mr. Boren, the Ranking Member, and the other Members is 

to try to make sure that we can progress forward with Indian 

Country and Alaska Natives and make sure they have an opportunity to improve their lot. 

So, again, thank you, and welcome aboard and you are up first. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE LARRY ECHO HAWK, 

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR INDIAN AFFAIRS, BUREAU OF 

INDIAN AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. ECHO HAWK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member Boren, and Subcommittee Members. Thank you for the opportunity extended to me to provide the Department of the Interior 

statement on the President’s 2012 budget request for Indian 

Affairs. As the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, I oversee the 

Office of the Assistant Secretary and also the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs, and the Bureau of Indian Education. 

6 

With me today are Mike Black, the Director of the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs, and Keith Moore, the Director of the Bureau of 

Indian Education. 

The President has requested $2.5 billion for Indian Affairs within 

the Department of the Interior. Through the work of the Tribal 

Interior Budget Council for Indian Affairs, this budget has been 

crafted after careful consultation with American Indian and Alaska 

Native government representatives. The President has called upon 

members of his administration to meet important objectives while 

also exercising fiscal responsibility. Consistent with that directive, 

difficult choices have been made in formulating the Fiscal Year 

2012 request for Indian Affairs. 

The Fiscal Year 2012 request is $118.9 million below the Fiscal 

Year 2010 enacted budget level. This is a reduction of 4.5 percent. 

The majority of the reductions are due to one-time program increases provided in prior appropriations, completion of projects and 

completion of payments to settlements. Still, Indian Affairs had to 

make tough decisions that reflect the President’s commitment to 

fiscal responsibility. Nevertheless, this proposed budget has $89.6 

million targeted increases for tribal programs, and I would like to 

highlight some of those targeted increases which are a part of the 

President’s strengthening tribal nations initiative. 

Under the category of advancing nation-to-nation relationships, 

there is a $42.3 million increase, which includes contract support 

cost of $25.5 million. I note that this is the top priority of the Tribal Interior Budget Council. That Council is made up of two tribal 

representatives from all 12 regions of the country. 

Also included within this category is $4 million for the Indian 

Self-Determination Fund, and this is to assist tribes to contract 

and compact new programs. There is also a provision here for support of small and needy tribes at the level of $3 million, and this 

would help small tribes carry out basic services as tribal governments. This will affect 114 tribes, 86 of which are in the State of 

Alaska. 

The second category is protecting Indian communities and we are 

requesting an increase of $20 million which includes $5.1 million 

for our tribal law enforcement operations, a total of $11.4 million 

for the operation and maintenance of detention centers and $2.5 

million for tribal courts. 

In the third category, improving trust land management, there 

is an increase requested of $18.4 million, which includes $2 million 

for renewable energy projects on tribal trust lands, and $1 million 

for conventional energy development. In trust natural resource 

management, there is a request for a $7.7 million increase which 

covers a variety of things, including development of the former 

Bennett Freeze area on the Navajo reservation in Arizona, also implementation of off-reservation treaty rights for conservation and 

management, and also management of on-reservation fish and 

wildlife resources. It also includes, as an example, $1 million for 

forestry programs on approximately 292 reservation areas. 

And in the fourth category, improving Indian education, there is 

an increase requested of $8.9 million. This includes an initiative on 

safe and secure schools of $3.9 million which will implement safety 

7 

and security programs at 10 schools to mitigate issues identified by 

the Inspector General last year. There is also a request of $2 million to meet settlement terms with regard to an EPA—EPA violations found in 2008, and then $3 

million for tribal support, grant support cost for—that is $3 million 

to fund administration and indirect costs for 124 controlled schools 

and residential facilities. 

There are significant program decreases, and just highlight that 

in the operation of Indian programs there would be a decrease of 

$43.3 million, construction would be $65 million, and there are program eliminations of $7.9 million, program completions of $64.4 

million, and administrative reductions of $22.1 million. 

This budget will serve more than 1.7 million American Indians 

and Alaska natives, and I note that almost 90 percent of all appropriations are expended at the local level, 63 percent of appropriations are provided directly to tribes. There are great needs in 

Indian Country, but President Obama’s administration has faithfully sought to meet those needs by following the priorities set by 

tribal leaders. We would be happy to respond to questions. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Echo Hawk follows:] 

Statement of Larry Echo Hawk, Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Good morning Chairman Young and Ranking Member Boren, and members of the 

Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs. Thank you for the opportunity 

to provide the Department of the Interior’s (Department) statement on the fiscal 

year (FY) 2012 President’s Budget request that was released on February 14, 2011 

for Indian Affairs’ programs. The FY 2012 budget request for Indian Affairs programs within the Department totals $2.5 billion in current appropriations. This reflects $118.9 million, a 4.5 percent decrease, from the FY 2010 enacted level. The 

budget includes a reduction of $50.0 million to eliminate the one-time forward funding provided in 2010 to Tribal Colleges and Universities; a reduction of $41.5 million 

for detention center new facility construction due to a similar program within the 

Department of Justice; and a reduction of $22.1 for administrative cost savings and 

management efficiencies. 

Overall, the 2012 Indian Affairs budget reflects a fiscally responsible balance of 

the priorities expressed by the Tribes during consultation and broader objectives of 

the Administration, as well as demonstrated program performance, and realistic 

administrative limitations. The 2012 budget focuses on core responsibilities to 

American Indians and Alaska Natives through programs and services that are vital 

to Indian Country and that benefit the greatest number of Indian people on a nationwide basis. The budget focuses on priority areas in Indian Country and honors 

the Federal Government’s obligations to tribal nations in a focused and consulted 

manner. 

As the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, I have the responsibility to oversee 

the numerous programs within the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Bureau 

of Indian Education (BIE), along with other programs within the immediate office 

of the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs. The Office of the Assistant Secretary 

for Indian Affairs, BIA, and BIE programs expend over 90 percent of appropriations 

at the local level. Of this amount, at least 62 percent of the appropriations are provided directly to tribes and tribal organizations through grants, contracts, and compacts for tribes to operate government programs and schools. Indian Affairs’ programs serve the more than 1.7 million American Indian and Alaska Natives living 

on or near the reservation. 

The Indian Affairs FY 2012 budget request provides funding for three of the Department’s priority initiatives: Strengthening Tribal Nations, New Energy Frontier, 

and Cooperative Landscape Conservation. 

Strengthening Tribal Nations 

The Strengthening Tribal Nations initiative is a multi-faceted approach to enhance Nation-to-Nation relationships, improve Indian education, protect Indian comVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:00 Jun 17, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\65117.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
8 

munities, and reform trust land management, with the ultimate goal of greater tribal self-determination. This initiative was highlighted over a year ago when President Obama and his Administration engaged in direct dialogue with Tribal Nations 

in November 2009 at the White House Tribal Nations Conference held at the Department’s Yates Auditorium, with over 400 tribal leaders in attendance. The President held a second successful conference in December 2010 to continue dialogue and 

work with tribal nations. 

Nation-to-Nation Relationship 

The Administration, in believing that investing in Indian Country is the key to advancing our Nation-to-Nation relationship, seeks $42.3 million in programmatic 

increases for contract support, self determination contract specialists, and social 

workers. At the forefront of this investment is contract support, which was identified by many tribal nations as their top priority. 

Funding contract support costs encourages tribal contracting and supports Indian 

self-determination. Contract support funds are used by Tribes that manage Federal 

programs to pay a wide range of administrative and management costs, including 

finance, personnel, maintenance, insurance, utilities, audits, communications, and 

vehicle costs. 

The requested FY 2012 increases will also allow the BIA to fund Self-Determination Specialist positions to ensure proper contract oversight. In addition, it will 

allow the BIA to add more social workers to assist tribal communities in addressing 

problems associated with high unemployment and substance abuse. Through this 

assistance, and by addressing these problems, there will be positive indirect impacts 

on public safety and education in these tribal communities. We also plan for $3.0 

million of this request for approximately 86 Alaska and 17 ‘‘lower-48’’ Small and 

Needy Tribes that both have populations below 1,700 and receive less than the recommended threshold for base funding. These funds will bring these Tribes to the 

minimum funding necessary to strengthen their tribal governments ($160,000 in the 

lower-48 and $190,000 in Alaska). 

In addition, reflecting a top priority of President Obama, Secretary Salazar and 

I, the budget request includes language confirming the Department of the Interior’s 

authority to acquire land in trust for all federally recognized tribes. Taking land 

into trust is one of the most important functions that the Department undertakes 

on behalf of Indian tribes. Since 2009, the Department has acquired more than 

34,000 acres of land in trust on behalf of Indian nations. Tribal homelands are essential to the health, safety and welfare of American Indians and Alaska Natives. 

Protecting Indian Country 

For the past several years, tribal nations have consistently identified public safety 

as one of their top priorities. The BIA supports 193 law enforcement programs 

throughout the nation; within the 193 programs, there are 6 district offices and 187 

programs performing law enforcement services consisting of: 36 BIA-operated programs and 151 tribally-operated programs. Approximately 78 percent of the total 

BIA Office of Justice Services (OJS) programs are outsourced to tribes. 

President Obama, Secretary Salazar and I have prioritized public safety based on 

feedback from the respective tribes. The FY 2012 budget request seeks an additional 

$20.0 million in public safety funding over the FY 2010 enacted level. Within the 

increase, $5.1 million is for tribal and bureau law enforcement operations and $10.4 

million for tribal and bureau detention facilities operations. The funding will be 

used for staffing, training, implementation of the Tribal Law and Order Act, and 

equipment to increase staffing capacity for law enforcement and detention programs 

and ensure communities can support efforts to combat crime in Indian Country. The 

budget requests an additional $1.0 million, for a total of $13.8 million in funding 

for detention facilities operations and maintenance throughout Indian country. The budget includes $2.5 million for tribal courts to support the enhanced capabilities given to tribal courts in the Tribal Law and Order Act. The increases to tribal courts and corrections will augment recent increases to the size of the tribal police forces over the last several years, which is part of a multistep plan to strengthen tribal justice systems. The budget also includes $1.0 million for tribal Conservation Law Enforcement 

Officers. The CLEO’s primary responsibility is the protection of tribal natural 

resources; however, officers are often cross-deputized with local law enforcement 

agencies providing CLEOs with the authorization to enforce criminal law. 

Advancing Indian Education 

The BIE is one of only two agencies in the Federal government that manages a 

school system, the other being the Department of Defense. Education is critical to 

ensuring a viable and prosperous future for tribal communities and American 

9 

Indians. It is this Department’s goal to improve Indian education and provide quality educational opportunities for those students who attend the 183 BIE funded elementary and secondary schools and dormitories located on 64 reservations in 23 

states and serving approximately 41,000 students. 

The FY 2012 request maintains the President’s, Secretary Salazar’s, and my ongoing commitment to improve Indian education for students in bureau-funded schools 

and tribally controlled colleges. The budget provides an increase of $8.9 million to 

improve the state of BIE schools. We plan to use $3.9 million to promote safe and 

secure schools by implementing safety and security measures at 10 schools and 2 

dormitories. This request also includes an increase of $2.0 million, which will provide funds for additional professionals to conduct environmental audits at BIE 

schools. 

Another component of BIE funding is Tribal Grant Support Costs, which cover administrative and indirect costs at 126 tribally controlled schools and residential facilities. Tribes operating BIE-funded schools under contract or grant authorization 

use these funds to pay for the administrative overhead necessary to operate a 

school, meet legal requirements, and carry out other support functions that would 

otherwise be provided by the BIE school system. The budget increases funding for 

these activities by $3.0 million. 

Improving Trust Land Management 

In addition to the human services components of Indian Affairs, the United States 

holds 55 million surface acres of land and 57 million acres of subsurface mineral 

estates in trust for Tribes and individual Indians. Trust management is vital to tribal and individual economic development. The management of Indian natural 

resources is a primary economic driver in many regions within the country. For 

example, some of the larger forested tribes operate the only sawmills in their region 

and are major employers of not only their own people, but of the non-tribal members 

who live in or near their communities 

This Administration seeks to continue advancing the Strengthening Tribal Nations initiative by assisting Tribes in the management, development and protection 

of Indian trust land, as well as natural resources on those lands. The FY 2012 budget request includes $18.4 million in programmatic increases for land and water 

management activities. Those activities include: $1.2 million for land development 

in the former Bennett Freeze area in Arizona on the Navajo Nation reservation and 

$1.0 million for the Forestry program. 

The 2012 budget provides $2.0 million for the Rights Implementation program 

and the Tribal Management and Development program to support fishing, hunting, 

and gathering rights on and off reservations. The request provides $2.0 million for 

Fish, Wildlife, and Parks programs and projects to support fisheries management 

at BIA and tribal levels. The budget also provides an additional $500,000 for the 

Invasive Species/Noxious Weed Eradication program to provide weed control on 

20,000 acres. 

The budget proposes an additional $1.0 million for the Water Management and 

Pre-Development program to assist Tribes in the identification and quantification of 

water resources; $1.0 million for Water Rights/Litigation to defend and assert 

Indian water rights. The budget also provides an increase of $3.8 million to help 

BIA address dam safety deficiencies and ensure public safety near high hazard 

dams in Indian Country. 

Additional increases for Improving Trust Land Management are included in the 

New Energy Frontier and the Cooperative Landscape Conservation initiatives. 

New Energy Frontier Initiative 

The Office of Indian Energy and Economic Development (IEED) works closely 

with Tribes to assist them with the exploration and development of tribal lands with 

active and potential energy resources. These lands have the potential for renewable 

and conventional energy resource development. The FY 2012 budget includes an increase of $3.5 million in Indian Affairs for conventional and renewable energy 

projects as part of the Department’s New Energy Frontier initiative, which will 

allow Indian Affairs and Tribes to explore and develop 1.8 million acres of active 

and potential energy sources on tribal land. The IEED provides funding, guidance, 

and implementation of feasibility studies, market analyses, and oversight of leasehold agreements of oil, gas, coal, renewable and industrial mineral deposits located 

on Indian lands. 

This increase includes $2.0 million in the Minerals and Mining program to provide grants directly to Tribes for projects to evaluate and develop renewable energy 

resources on tribal trust land, a vital first step before energy development can 

begin. The budget also contains a $1.0 million increase for conventional energy deVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:00 Jun 17, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\65117.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
10 

velopment on the Fort Berthold Reservation. To further expedite energy development on the Fort Berthold Reservation, Indian Affairs, the Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, and the 

Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians created a ‘‘virtual’’ one-stop shop. 

The IEED—Division of Energy and Mineral Development, at the one-stop shop, has 

been proactive in using technology and technical assistance to process permits on 

the Fort Berthold Reservation. In 2010, the number of wells went from zero wells 

at the start of 2010 to over 100 producing wells at the end of 2010. It is anticipated 

that in 2011 this number will double to over 200 producing wells on Indian trust 

lands. The budget includes a $500,000 increase to support staff onsite, as well as 

provide on-call access to the full range of the Department’s operational and financial 

management services. 

In addition, IEED supports economic growth in Indian Country and assists Indian 

Tribes in developing economic infrastructure, augmenting business knowledge, increasing jobs, businesses, capital investment, as well as developing energy and mineral resources on trust lands. IEED has initiated many programs, projects, technical 

conferences and training programs to address the lack of employment, and intends 

to continue these efforts. 

Cooperative Landscape Conservation Initiative 

Indian Affairs will co-lead the North Pacific Landscape Conservation Cooperative 

(LCC) with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and support tribal outreach efforts 

of other LCCs, particularly those in the northwestern U.S. In the North Pacific Cooperative, Indian Affairs will seek tribal input and perspective from Tribes with traditional ecological knowledge; and both Indian Affairs staff and local tribal members 

will be involved to develop strategies to address adaptation. 

Requested Decreases 

The initiatives described above, and the related increases in the Administration’s 

request, mark a continued step toward the advancement of the Federal government’s relationship with tribal nations. These initiatives focus on those programs 

geared toward strengthening tribal nations and reflect the President’s priorities to 

support economic development in Indian Country. 

The President has also called upon members of his Administration to meet important objectives while also exercising fiscal responsibility. Consistent with that directive, we made several difficult choices in the FY 2012 appropriations request for 

Indian Affairs. 

The 2012 request includes $43.3 million in program decreases for the Operation 

of Indian Programs account including administrative central office reductions of 

$14.2 million for streamlining and improving oversight operations and to correspond 

to other programmatic cuts within the 2012 request. The budget reduces Real Estate Projects by $10.9 million; the remaining funds will be used to focus program 

operations on cadastral surveys as a catalyst for economic development for Tribes. 

The budget reduces Land Records Improvement by $8.5 million; the remaining 

funds will maintain core operations for the Trust Asset and Accounting Management System. The budget reduces the Probate Backlog by $7.5 million as over 

18,000 cases are expected to be completed. 

The Indian Affairs 2012 budget includes $32.9 million for ongoing Indian land and 

water settlements, which includes a reduction of $14.5 million reflecting completion 

of the Pueblo of Isleta, Puget Sound Regional Shellfish, and Soboba Band of Luiseno 

Indians settlements. The budget includes $9.5 million for the sixth of seven required 

payments for the Nez Perce/Snake River Settlement. The Omnibus Public Land 

Management Act of 2009 authorized payments to Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the 

Duck Valley Reservation; this budget includes $12.0 million for the third payment 

for that settlement. The Act also authorized settlement payments to the Navajo Nation; the budget includes $6.0 million for Navajo Nation Water Resources Development Trust Fund and $4.4 million for the San Juan Conjunctive Use Wells and San 

Juan River Navajo Irrigation Rehabilitation Project which are part of the NavajoGallup Settlement. 

The Construction program contains program reductions of $65.0 million. Of this 

programmatic decrease, $41.5 million for Public Safety and Justice new facility construction has been reduced from the Construction budget. The budget is reduced by 

$8.9 for Education Replacement Facility Construction, $5.0 million for Public Safety 

and Justice Employee Housing; the Department has taken a strategic approach to 

not fund new construction in 2012. At the requested level, the Education Construction budget redirects funding from new construction activities to Facility Improvement and Repair to achieve greater flexibility in maintaining existing facilities and 

employee housing. 

11 

The budget includes a reduction of $9.0 million for the Navajo Indian Irrigation 

Project. Indian Affairs is evaluating continuing construction on the Navajo Indian 

Irrigation Project. Additionally, $57.3 million was transferred from Construction to 

the Operation of Indian Programs account so to better align and consolidate operations and maintenance funding. 

The request takes into consideration the $285.0 million that was provided to 

Indian Affairs for school and detention center construction activities and $225.0 million provided to the Department of Justice for detention center construction in 

Indian Country under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act). 

With funding from the Recovery Act, Indian Affairs will complete a number of high 

priority projects. 

Although there are decreases to the construction programs in the appropriations 

request, the appropriations request does contain the following construction items: 

$52.1 million for Education, $11.3 million for Public Safety and Justice, $33.0 million for Resource Management, and $8.5 million for Other Program Construction. 

The budget provides $3.1 million for the Indian Guaranteed Loan program, a reduction of $5.1 million from the 2010 Enacted level. The program will undergo an 

evaluation, develop a comprehensive performance metric framework, and improve 

efforts to work with other Federal agencies that assist Tribes in loans. 

The 2012 budget includes a reduction of $3.0 million for the Indian Land Consolidation Program. The Claims Resolution Act of 2010 included the Cobell v. Salazar 

settlement agreement. The agreement includes $1.9 billion for land consolidation 

within the Office of the Secretary. This new funding will utilized to consolidate fractionalized land interests to be more economically viable for Tribes. 

Conclusion 

We are aware of the current fiscal challenges our nation faces. This Administration understands the need to take fiscal responsibility, and also understands the 

need to strengthen tribal nations, foster responsible development of tribal energy 

resources, and improve the Nation-to-Nation relationship between tribal nations and 

the United States. It is our sincere belief that we have struck a balance in this FY 

2012 budget request for Indian Affairs that achieves the President’s objectives of fiscal discipline while at the same time meeting our obligations to tribal nations with 

which our Federal government has a Constitutionally-based government-to-government relationship. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 

to appear before you today. I am happy to answer any questions you may have. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Echo Hawk. Mr. Joseph, you are up 

next. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RAY A. JOSEPH, PRINCIPAL 

DEPUTY SPECIAL TRUSTEE FOR AMERICAN INDIANS, 

OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL TRUSTEE FOR AMERICAN INDIANS, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. JOSEPH. Good morning, Chairman Young, Ranking Member 

Boren, and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Ray Joseph. 

I am the Principal Deputy Special Trustee for American Indians. 

I have with me the Associate Principal Deputy Special Trustee for 

American Indians, Donna Erwin with me today. 

I am pleased to be before the Subcommittee today to discuss Interior’s Fiscal Year 2012 budget for the Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians. I have submitted my full statement to the 

Subcommittee, which I ask be made part of the hearing record. 

Mr. YOUNG. Without objection. 

Mr. JOSEPH. OST’s Fiscal Year 2012 budget request is consistent 

with the President’s goal to reduce the deficit but remain sufficient 

to meet our fiduciary responsibilities and to provide quality services to Indian beneficiaries. OST was initially tasked by Congress 

with department-wide oversight for the reform of Indian Trust 

management, and the implementation of new fiduciary accounting 

12 

systems. OST’s oversight role expanded in 1996 to include operational responsibility for financial trust management, including the 

receipt, investment and disbursement of beneficiary funds. The Office of Appraisal Services, which appraises Indian Trust lands, was 

move to OST in 2002. The Office of Historical Trust Accounting 

was realigned in 2007, to report directly to the Special Trustee. 

The President’s Fiscal Year 2012 budget request for the Department of the Interior’s Office of the Special Trustee for American 

Indians is $152.3 million. This is reflecting a $24.7 million decrease 

from the 2010 enacted 2011 resolution. OST’s 2012 budget request 

reflects program reductions of $22.6 million, and $3.3 million in administrative savings from the 2010 enacted 2011 continuing resolution. The only proposed increase in funding is for fixed costs, which 

includes space, utilities, and other overhead expenses which is increased by $1.2 million. 

I would like to highlight five areas in the 2012 budget request. The Office of Special Trustee requests a $31.2 million budget for 

the Office of Historical Trust Accounting. This is a reduction of $16 

million from the Fiscal Year 2010 base level. The 2012 budget request reflects the enactment of a settlement for the Cobell v. Salazar lawsuit, and assumes the approval of the settlement in 2011. 

This settlement does not address pending tribal cases, a total of 

$27.2 million will be used to support and analyze tribal claims in 

coordination with the Department of Justice. There are currently 

96 tribal cases pending involving 114 tribes. A total of $4 million 

will be used to resolve proper ownership of residual balances in 

special deposit accounts and to distribute the account balances to 

tribes, individual Indians, and non-trust entities. 

The 2012 budget request also eliminates the Office of Engineer- ing, which is a savings of $2.1 million. This office worked to consolidate prior fiduciary trust reform plans. The bulk of trust reform 

projects that this office impacted are currently in production, therefore this office’s operations are now deemed to be a lower priority. 

This program will be eliminated through attrition and reassignment. 

The budget also requests a $1.9 million reduction on the Office 

of Trust Records. In Fiscal Year 2009, the Office of Trust Records 

completed the indexing of trust records collected in previous fiscal 

years from BIA. In future years the Office of Trust Records will 

continue to use in-house staff rather than contractors to maintain 

and update the trust records database and as trust records are retired. OTR will be using less Federal personnel in the base contract 

level, and there should be a minimal impact on workload and performance. 

The Fiscal Year 2012 budget request also request s reduction of 

$1 million in Data Quality and Integrity Program. This is a trust 

asset and account management system data clean-up project that 

validates or corrects critical data elements. The TAAMS leasing 

model, post conversion cleanup efforts are projected to be completed 

in Fiscal Year 2011, therefore in Fiscal Year 2012, DQ&I will have 

decreased workload. 

In support of the President’s commitment to fiscal discipline and 

spending restraint, OST is participating in an aggressive department-wide effort to curb non-essential administrative spending. 

13 

The staff of OST was able to design a more efficient operational 

management structure which accounts for $3.3 million in administrative savings in this budget request. 

This 2012 budget request includes reductions that reflect that reflect the accountable government imitative to curb non-essential 

administrative spending in support of the President’s commitment 

on fiscal discipline and spending restraint. The staff has also implemented an accounting process that ensures today’s Indian Trust 

financial operations are transparent and efficient. Our beneficiaries 

can be assured OST will continue to manage their funds with proficiency and care. 

Mr. Chairman, once again I would like to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today, and I will be happy to answer 

any questions that you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Joseph follows:] 

Statement of Ray A. Joseph, Principal Deputy Special Trustee 

for American Indians, U.S. Department of the Interior 

Good morning, Chairman Young, Ranking Member Boren and Members of the 

Subcommittee. My name is Ray Joseph, and I am the Principal Deputy Special 

Trustee for American Indians. 

I am pleased to be before the Subcommittee today to discuss Interior’s fiscal year 

(FY) 2012 budget for the Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians. I have 

submitted my full statement to the Subcommittee, which I ask be made part of the 

hearing record. 

OST’s FY 2012 budget request is consistent with the President’s goal to reduce 

the deficit, but remains sufficient to meet our fiduciary responsibilities and provide 

quality services to Indian beneficiaries. 

OST Purpose 

OST was initially tasked by Congress with Department-wide oversight for the reform of Indian trust management and implementation of new fiduciary accounting 

systems. OST’s oversight role expanded in 1996 to include operational responsibility 

for financial trust fund management, including receipt, investment and disbursement of beneficiary funds. The Office of Appraisal Services, which appraises Indian 

trust lands, was moved to OST in 2002. The Office of Historical Trust Accounting 

was realigned in 2007 to report directly to the Special Trustee. 

FY 2012 Budget Request 

The President’s fiscal year 2012 budget request for the Department of the Interior’s Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians (OST) is $152.3 million, 

reflecting a $24.7 million net decrease from the 2010 Enacted/2011 CR. OST’s 2012 

budget request reflects program reductions of $22.6 million and $3.3 million in administrative savings from the 2010 Enacted/2011 CR level. The only proposed increase is in funding for fixed costs—space, utilities, and other overhead expenses— 

which increased by $1.2 million. 

I would like to highlight five areas in OST’s FY 2012 budget: 

OHTA 

The OST request also includes $31.2 million for the Office of Historical Trust Accounting (OHTA), a reduction of $16.0 million from the FY 2010 base level. The 

2012 budget reflects the enactment of a settlement for the Cobell v. Salazar lawsuit 

and assumes court approval of the settlement in 2011. The settlement does not address pending tribal cases. A total of $27.2 million will be used to support analysis 

of tribal claims in coordination with the U.S. Department of Justice. There are currently 96 tribal cases pending involving 114 Tribes. A total of $4.0 million will be 

used to resolve the proper ownership of residual balances in special deposit accounts 

and distribute account balances to Tribes, individual Indians, and non-trust entities. 

Reengineering 

OST’s FY 2012 request eliminates the Office of Reengineering, a savings of $2.1 

million. This office worked to consolidate prior fiduciary trust reform plans. The 

bulk of the trust reform projects that the Reengineering staff impacted are currently 

14 

in production—therefore this office’s operations are now deemed a lower priority. 

The program will be eliminated through attrition and reassignment. 

OTR 

This budget also requests a reduction of $1.9 million for the Office of Trust 

Records. In FY 2009, OTR completed the indexing of trust records collected in previous fiscal years from BIA. In future years OTR will continue to use in-house staff, 

rather than contractors, to maintain and update the database as records are retired. 

OTR will be using less federal personnel than the base contract personnel and there 

should be minimal impact on workload and performance. 

DQ&I 

The FY 2012 budget requests a $1 million reduction in the Data Quality and Integrity (DQ&I) program. This is a Trust Asset and Accounting Management System 

(TAAMS) data cleanup project that validates or corrects Critical Data Elements. 

TAAMS Leasing Module post-conversion cleanup efforts are projected to be completed by FY 2011—therefore in FY 2012 DQ&I will have a decreased workload. 

Administrative Cost Savings and Management Efficiencies 

In support of the President’s commitment to fiscal discipline and spending restraint, OST is participating in an aggressive Department-wide effort to curb nonessential administrative spending. The staff of OST should be commended for the 

efficient management of operations which accounts for $3.3 million in administrative savings in this budget request. 

The 2012 budget request includes reductions that reflect the Accountable Government Initiative to curb non-essential administrative spending in support of the 

President’s commitment on fiscal discipline and spending restraint. In accordance 

with this initiative, the OST budget includes $3.0 million in savings in 2012 against 

actual 2010 expenditures in the following activities: $267,111 for travel and transportation of persons, $25,270 for transportation of things, $20,940 for printing and 

reproduction, $2.5 million for advisory and assistance services, and $147,010 for 

supplies and materials. Actions to address the Accountable Government Initiative 

and reduce these expenses build upon management efficiency efforts proposed in 

2011 totaling $332,000 in travel and relocation, information technology, and strategic sourcing and bureau-specific efficiencies totaling $2.6 million. 

The staff has also implemented a dynamic accounting process that ensures today’s 

Indian trust financial operations are transparent and efficient. Our beneficiaries can 

be assured OST will continue to manage their funds with proficiency and care. 

Conclusion 

Mr. Chairman, once again, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to appear 

before you today, and I will be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Joseph. I appreciate that. 

Mr. Boren. 

Mr. BOREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple questions 

here, some general questions first to Mr. Echo Hawk. Your budget 

documents claim that the budget request was developed in extensive consultation with Indian tribes. I think that is very important 

and I appreciate that, that consultation did take place, and that 

your budget request tells us what you propose to fund based on 

these consultations. 

Can you tell us in your meetings and in your consultations with 

tribes something that was not included in the budget that maybe 

tribes proposed during these consultations that maybe you just decided, well, that may be a good idea but we can’t put it in our 

budget document? What are some things that didn’t actually make 

it, you know, the old cutting room floor analogy in a film? What 

are some things that didn’t make it that some of the tribes proposed that may be something the Committee needs to look at? 

Mr. ECHO HAWK. Thank you, Congressman Boren. 

With regard to the consultation process, we meet about four 

times a year with the Tribal Interior Budget Council. That is preVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:00 Jun 17, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\65117.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
15 

viously been called the Tribal Budget Advisory Council. So you 

know, it has moved from that word ‘‘advisory’’ to just a joint Tribal 

Interior Council, and you know, they go through a process each 

year of establishing their priorities. In fact, we have a meeting next 

week to start working on the 2013 priorities. 

So, not only do they establish those priorities that we try to work 

into the budget, but we also, when we got the OMB guidance about 

reducing spending levels, we included the Tribal Interior Budget 

Council in those discussions as well. We are just trying to think 

about anything in particular that didn’t make it into the budget, 

and you know, I think it probably goes down just to the level of 

funding for the tribal priority allocations. These are the core programs of tribes, they would have requested higher levels of funding 

pretty much across the board. 

Mr. BOREN. As a follow up to that let me ask you a question 

about one of the programs. We talk about economic development. 

The Chairman has said one of the key goals of this Subcommittee 

is for economic development in Indian Country. With this in mind, 

there is a budget cut for the Indian Loan Guarantee Program of 

$5.1 million. That is a budget reduction of about 60 percent. Is that 

something that you all talked about in these meetings? What is the 

reason for that cut? It may be a good reason. I just kind of want 

to scratch into that a little bit. 

Mr. ECHO HAWK. Congressman Boren, as I said, you know, the 

tribes would have been requesting more dollars in some of these 

core programs that we were able to come up with in this request, 

and with regard to the Loan Guarantee Program, this has been 

something that tribal leaders support greatly We have utilized 

those funds in the past, we think effectively, but the budget realities that we are in right now requires some reductions, and this is 

one of the areas that was reduced. 

We are going to be working to evaluate that program to see how 

we can connect with other loan guarantee programs in the Federal 

Government. I think there was also some concern that with money 

that was allocated through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act we were not able to get that money out the door as rapidly as we had hoped. That, to some extent, had to do with not just 

decisions that were being made by tribal leaders or Indian Affairs 

and Interior, but it had to do with whether or not financial institutions were willing to back the loans that are leveraged through this 

program. But, you know, in the long term going back we think that 

this has been a very effective program; just not as much as tribal 

leaders had hoped that we would be able to fund it this year. 

Mr. BOREN. Thank you for your response. 

Mr. Chairman, it looks like we have run out of time over here, 

but got tons of questions or a lot of things that we could delve into. 

Mr. YOUNG. We will have sounds rounds if you wish to do so. Mr. 

Denham. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The first question I have it about priorities. You know, the purpose of the BIA is to help tribes facilitate self-sufficiency and develop their economies. Would you agree with that, that that is the 

main purpose of the BIA? 

Mr. ECHO HAWK. Yes, Congressman. 

16 

Mr. DENHAM. Then why are we putting a higher priority on fish 

and wildlife over economic develop in this year’s budget? 

Mr. ECHO HAWK. Excuse me. Would you repeat that question? 

Mr. DENHAM. Why are we putting a greater priority on fish and 

wildlife protections rather than on economic development? You 

have a 20 percent decrease in economic development, and yet we 

have higher funding levels for fish and wildlife protections. And 

specifically in California, well, let me stop there first. 

Mr. ECHO HAWK. Congressman, the funding for the fish and 

wildlife programs, a lot of those increases are driven by off-reservation treaty rights. These have been court cases that have been 

brought in the Great Lakes area as well as the Northwest, in particular, and it established the right of tribal people to do this for 

subsistence and ceremonial purposes, but also very importantly for 

commercial enterprises. Many tribal people in those regions rely on 

off-reservation treaty fishing rights for their jobs and their economy. 

So, in order to make those viable rights it is necessary to spend 

money for habitat conservation and taking care of the fish and 

wildlife, and also meeting its responsibilities for management and 

enforcement so that those economies can continue. 

Mr. DENHAM. And shouldn’t a sovereign entity do what is best 

for them on their lands rather than having our budget dictate to 

them? Again, specifically I am looking at the lawsuit in California. 

Mr. ECHO HAWK. Could you mention what specific lawsuit you 

are talking about? 

Mr. DENHAM. Dealing with energy production and—I will get 

back to you on what tribe specifically it is, but I know that they 

have already expressed their concern with government overreach 

and have already filed a lawsuit in this particular matter. I guess, 

specifically it is frustrating to me to see a shift in priorities. I am 

not specifically just looking at this one case, but specifically in the 

budget there is—you know, economic development seems to be one 

of the biggest areas that the tribes that I have talked to wants to 

focus on, yet that is where we are seeing a decrease. 

And further in that on the administration side, we are talking 

cuts to the administration side while we are still seeing a backlog 

of permits. 

Mr. ECHO HAWK. Congressman, just as a follow up, you know, 

I would assure you that there is very strong support for providing 

funding for the fish and wildlife activities, both off-reservation and 

on-reservation. I have already addressed the off-reservation importance. I have just a very brief comment about on-reservation. 

In the big picture, tribes, you know, gave up substantial acreage 

of land in the United States, and as a part of that process the 

United States made commitments back to the tribes that the remaining lands would be their permanent homelands and the 

United States would assist them in making these prosperous homelands, and fish and wildlife resources within reservation boundaries are important for the economy and subsistence of native people. And so tribal leaders feel very strongly about those programs. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Kildee. 

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

17 

I would like to point out Michigan went through a struggle on 

the fishing rights and the Indians basically won on the basis of a 

treaty. There are a couple of treaties: Treaty of Detroit. I read 

those treaties myself. For example, the treaty always says that we 

promise education for the Indians in return for taking their land, 

and I introduced a bill 40-some years ago in the State Legislature 

that any Michigan Indian can go to a public college in Michigan 

and the state pays the tuition, and that is still the law, and I have 

known many a person who has gone to college because of that. 

But it is really based upon the fact that the constitution says this 

constitution and the laws of the United States shall be made in 

pursuance thereof and all treaties made or which shall be made 

under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law 

of the land, and that judges in every state shall be bound thereby 

anything in the constitutional laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding. So, Michigan tried to stop the Indians, but they 

weren’t able to stop them because of the treaty right which is protected here in the constitution. 

Just as a little aside, I was talking to an 80-year-old Indian up 

in Bay Mills, and he said he was out fishing one time when this 

controversy was going on, and he said the DNR came out to arrest 

me, and I knew I had my rights. My grandfather and great grandfather had taught me that, he said, but I hid out in the reeds and 

the weeds so the DNR couldn’t physically grab a hold of me, and 

he said but the mosquitos kept biting me, he said, but the only 

thing that gave me constellation is that I knew the mosquitos were 

also biting the DNR. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. KILDEE. But you know, the constitution is extremely important and we are bound by those treaties and John Marshall has 

said these Indian treaties are as valid as treaties with France or 

Germany. 

We read in Article I, Section 8, that the Congress shall have the 

power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the 

several states and with the Indian tribes. Puts all those on inequality. So we don’t give France its sovereignty, we recognize it. 

John Marshall made it very clear that the sovereignty of the 

Indian tribes is a retained sovereignty, and that retained sovereignty is protected by the constitution, not granted by the constitution. So I come to that because we mentioned the fishing here, 

and fishing is a very important right in Michigan, and the natives 

have done well under their fishing rights. 

In your testimony you mention the importance of improving trust 

land management. A major issue now is the Carcieri v. Salazar decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. They don’t base that upon anything in the constitution, they base it on a faulty interpretation of 

a 1934 statute. What is the Department doing to work with the 

Congress or try to modify or set aside that Carcieri decision? 

Mr. ECHO HAWK. Congressman Kildee, first of all, with regard to 

the off-reservation treaty fishing rights, I had the opportunity this 

past summer to travel to Michigan to Bay Mills, and part of my 

time spent up there was to go out in the waters, I think it is near 

the Apostle Islands, and to experience and to see how the tribal 

fishermen are making a living off their treaty fishing rights. And 

18 

it is much more important than just subsistence. It is the way that 

they make their living, and it was nice to see that firsthand. 

With regard to the Carcieri case, right after I became Assistant 

Secretary of Indian Affairs I held consultation with tribal people 

across the country attended, I think we had three or four sessions. 

I attended each of the sessions in different parts of the country. 

And the strong message that I received from tribal leaders is that 

Indian tribes should be treated alike. There should not be any second class citizens out there when it comes to having the Secretary 

of the Interior exercise authority to bring land into the trust, and 

they also said that this problem created by this Supreme Court decision should be fixed by the Congress. And so the Obama Administration has taken a position in support of a legislative fix. We did 

that in the last Congress, and within the President’s budget for 

2012 is a provision to support that fix in legislation. 

Mr. KILDEE. And I thank you. I thank you for all your help and 

I thank you for the find way in which you are carrying out your 

responsibilities. Thank you. 

Mr. YOUNG. The gentleman yields back? Mr. Gosar. 

Dr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit an opening 

statement for the record. 

Mr. YOUNG. Without objection. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Gosar follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Paul A. Gosar, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Arizona 

Chairman Young and Ranking Member Boren, thank you for holding this important hearing today. And to Assistant Secretary Echo Hawk and to Mr. Joseph, 

thank you for spending time with us this morning to delve into the important questions we face, as we navigate the President’s Budget Request for next fiscal year. 

Native tribes are sovereign nations, yet the United States Government has a special trust obligation to these tribes, given the treaties we entered into with each 

tribe many decades ago. The history of this trust has been complicated to say the 

least. In 1975, President Nixon signed into law the Indian Self Determination and 

Education Assistance Act, capping a hard fought effort by native tribes to win the 

right for maximum native participation in the government and education of the 

Native American people. And indeed, the 1975 law contained promising provisions 

to allow individual tribes to negotiate with the Bureau of Indian Affairs to administer their social service programs, and empower native parents to be involved in 

their children’s education. 

Native tribes have responded in kind, across the country clamoring for the flexibility to maintain their own infrastructure with BIA. But I can’t help but remark 

that there is far more work, far more cooperation, and far more learning to do when 

it comes to empowering tribes to manage their own affairs. 

Given that over one fifth of my constituents are Native Americans, I have undertaken an effort to meet with representatives from native tribes both in my district 

and around the Southwest. And the feedback from this diverse group of folks is 

strikingly similar: The BIA is widely resented for inefficiency, stonewalling, and 

micromanaging tribal affairs. As one who believes that local control is the key to 

effectiveness and responsiveness, I find this trend troubling. 

Tribal leaders have expressed a strong desire for BIA to move more towards 

awarding block grant funding to the tribes, with as little strings attached as possible. This will enable tribes to use their federal monies with an eye towards efficiency and service to their people, not towards jumping through bureaucratic hoops 

and red tape. I look forward to hearing our witness’s testimony today, and their 

thoughts on the progress of self determination and how BIA can partner with tribes 

on this endeavor. 

In particular, I am anxious to hear more from the witnesses about a long term 

plan to address the Former Bennett Freeze Area. For 40 years, the U.S. Government prohibited the Navajo and Hopi tribes from developing any further infrastructure on disputed land, about 700,000 acres worth in the Black Mesa Region of AriVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:00 Jun 17, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\65117.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
19 

zona. This ban affected 8,000 members of the Navajo Nation across nine communities, and remains today the most depressed area by far on the Navajo Reservation. 

A recent study commissioned by BIA found that 77% of the homes in the Bennett 

Freeze area are not suitable for residence, and that nearly 40% are without electricity. This isn’t the result of anything but pure government inaction, at the expense of my constituents. I am distressed at the apparent lack of action on the part 

of the current government to address this blight on our society. While none of us 

present here today took part in the initial Bennett Freeze in 1966, the fact is staring us all in the face that it is our responsibility to redress these grievous and unfair wounds. 

Again, thank you to the witnesses and I eagerly await your testimony. 

Dr. GOSAR. Secretary Echo Hawk, there is a part of the Navajo 

Nation that is an open wound on the conscious of this country. I 

am referring to the former Bennett Freeze area. Almost 40 years 

of government neglect, government indifference and government incompetence, this area is a hollow shell almost unfit for human inhabitation, but people do live there, and they want to live there. 

These determined Navajo want to stake their future in this land 

that Washington, D.C. almost destroyed. 

What has the BIA done since the Bennett Freeze was lifted last 

year to help the Navajo, and what is the BIA proposing? 

Mr. ECHO HAWK. Congressman, first of all just as a side note, I 

am a member of the Pawnee Nation, the Pawnee people originally 

from Nebraska, relocated into Oklahoma, but I actually grew up in 

Farmington, New Mexico, which is right across the river, the San 

Juan River, from the largest reservation in the Nation that is Navajo, and I am familiar with the Navajo reservation because I spent 

about 17 years living in that area, and I am well aware of the controversy that the Hopi and the Navajo Nations had, you know, for 

several years, and it appears that most of that has been resolved 

today. 

But we, unfortunately, had the Bennett Freeze which pretty 

much stopped development in a large portion of lands that area, 

and the administration does offer up in the budget, I think it is 

$1.2 million for development of the Bennett Freeze. That is in this 

2012 budget proposal of the President, which is meant to do several 

things to improve range land management and agricultural land 

use. 

We are going to be pushing for sustained effort because a lot of 

work needs to be done to make those lands productive for the people that are living there. 

Dr. GOSAR. There just doesn’t seem to be the urgency at the BIA 

to rebuild the FBFA. If a flood or a hurricane had destroyed this 

area, we would declare a national emergency and send help. Well, 

I am here to tell you this area is a disaster. It is a national disaster 

created by an act of the government instead of an act of God, but 

a natural disaster just the same. 

Will you help persuade the President to declare this area a national emergency so we can expedite assistance? 

Mr. ECHO HAWK. Congressman, I note your request and we will 

take that under consideration. We will be happy to work with you 

on that. 

Dr. GOSAR. Thank you. And looking at that I have met with representatives of numerous native tribes both inside my district and 

out. They express a strong resentment at the BIA in micro manVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:00 Jun 17, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\65117.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
20 

aging their issues, stonewalling and inefficiency. I am grounded in 

the principle that people at the local level know a lot more on how 

they have to appropriate need than does the bureaucrats in D.C. 

The tribal representatives tell me they would prefer block grants 

that would allow them to prioritize their needs and set in motion 

the projects they deem important in the time and manner they 

choose. Since we are having to do more with less due to our financial crisis, what are your thoughts about block grants? 

Mr. ECHO HAWK. Congressman, we would be interested in looking at alternatives like that. Block grants, that is not something 

that presently is done in full force within the realm of our responsibilities, but you know, I would like to note some interesting 

things that have occurred since the mid-1970s. Oftentimes people 

say that we are not paying attention to self-determination, but I 

am just looking at a chart here that goes back to 1973 when the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs had 18,285 employees, 18,285, and today 

that has dropped down to just a little over 8,000, so there has been 

a constant decline in the number of Federal employees, and what 

this really means is that the responsibilities have been transferred 

to tribes, and I note that today about one-half of all BIA programs 

are operated and administered and managed by tribes, one-half of 

all BIA programs. And when it comes to the Bureau of Education, 

it is two-thirds of all BIA BIE activities. 

So, this chart and those figures indicate that we do pay attention 

to self-determination, and I note that the self-determination policy 

was initiated 40 years ago under the Nixon Administration where 

that was followed up in 1975 by the enactment of the Indian SelfDetermination Act. So once that foundation was put in place you 

have seen a gradual development of recognizing greater authority 

and autonomy for tribal governments, and we will continue to pursue that course. 

Dr. GOSAR. Thank you. 

Mr. YOUNG. I thank the gentleman, and when we introduce the 

American Indian, Alaska Native Economic Empowerment Act, I 

hope to have some input from you. 

Mr. Luja ́n. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and along 

those lines, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the questioning regarding 

the block grants. Mr. Secretary, one question that I have, and we 

can review this later as we look to see what can happen for infrastructure on tribal lands, in New Mexico I am proud to say that 

the state created a tribal infrastructure fund, recognizing the need 

to work closer with our tribes where there is the ability to leverage 

Federal funds as well as state funds and tribal funds, and I think 

this would be another area where we could seriously consider opportunities to be able to help establish something similar as was 

done within the Water Rights Act as well, so I would just offer that 

suggestion, Mr. Secretary. 

BIA schools are a critical component of the education of Native 

American studies, and in New Mexico we have a significant number of children who rely on funding from the Department of the Interior to get their first years of education, and I have had many 

concerned tribal leaders, tribal members and teachers visit my office, visit with me back in New Mexico as well as when I am honVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:00 Jun 17, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\65117.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
21 

ored to visit their council or with their tribal leaders, that have expressed concerns of dire conditions of our BIA school. 

Many times these schools don’t meet normal inhabiting conditions and get condemned, leaving children with no place to go to 

school. In addition, my Native American constituents have brought 

to my attention that the process for obtaining support for funding 

for improvements for BIA schools is virtually impossible. Many 

times schools are approved to receive funding and it takes years, 

even decades to get the funds, meanwhile putting students and 

teachers out on the streets. 

I notice that the 2012 budget request cuts funding for new construction. Appreciating that only 10 percent of our students maybe 

attend BIA schools, but those 10 percent are attending schools in 

crumbling conditions. 

Mr. Secretary and Trustee Deputy Joseph, can you tell me what 

the BIA is doing to make certain BIA schools are maintained and 

constructed in a timely manner, and if there is a particular part 

in the process for maintaining BIA schools that the Department 

has identified as a problem so that it can be fixed, and what is your 

plan to address many other critical health and safety issues that 

remain in BIA schools today? 

Mr. ECHO HAWK. Congressman Luja ́n, I will make some comment and then perhaps I ought to invite, with your permission, our 

BIA director to make follow-up comments. But I believe the statistic is accurate, and I will check that, but in my mind going back 

to 2001, about 74 percent of all BIE schools were rated to be in 

poor condition. We have made progress over the years in lowering 

that figure. One of the principal means recently of addressing the 

condition of schools and replacing schools was the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which I think my recollection has infused about 286 million additional dollars which meant we were 

able to build some new schools and significantly repair schools that 

were in bad condition. So that has lowered that figure of you know 

how many are in poor condition. 

But we still have a backlog in construction need of over $2 billion, and I note that in the President’s budget for 2012 we actually 

have a cut in construction, so this is the kind of thing that keeps 

me awake at night knowing that we have that significant backlog 

and not being able to make progress with this particular budget, 

but we have made progress in recent years. We just have to have 

a more sustained effort. 

Now, I would like to see if Keith Moore would like to make any 

additional comment. 

Mr. MOORE. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, thank you, Congressman 

Luja ́n. Keith Moore, Director of Bureau of Education. 

I would add, you know, we obviously have the same concern that 

you do as the director of our school construction, maintenance work 

that we do. We made the decision really in the budget, we invested 

tens of millions as the Assistant Secretary alluded to in school construction the RL funding. So we took the dollars that we had there 

and increased our O&M, operation and maintenance budgets to be 

able to at least keep our school at the current level, knowing that 

we face a tough situation here in terms of the budget decisions and 

where we prioritize our line items. 

22 

So, we made the decision to beef up the O&M side of it to be able 

to maintain the new schools and the current improvements that we 

have done in the news schools and the current school. So, that was 

one of our steps that we took in terms of looking at the budget. 

Second, through the FEMA system, the Facilities Management 

Information System we track all of our issues that we have in our 

schools that are critical in terms of safe and secure and maintenance issues, so we have that information. We could get that to 

you. That is what we pay attention to each year when we on a formula basis prioritize what we are going to put our dollars to make 

improvements in schools. So, we also have that information and 

that is where our dollars go in terms of addressing that issue. Last, we have put in $3.9 million in Fiscal Year 2012 for school 

safety, so we want to improve in that area in terms of the issues 

that we are trying to work on with school safety. There was a hearing last year on the issues within our schools in terms of school 

safety, and we are trying to address those issues as well. 

So, thank you for your question and the chance to respond. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank the gentleman. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. YOUNG. Who do we have here? Mr. Labrador from Idaho. 

Idaho. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Mr. Chairman, I have no questions. I just want 

to welcome the good gentleman from Idaho. It is always good to see 

him here. 

Mr. YOUNG. Wait a minute. He said he was down in New Mexico 

and he said he was a Pawnee, and now he is in Idaho, in Oklahoma? I mean, a jack of all trades. 

Mr. ECHO HAWK. Mr. Chairman, I was born in Wyoming so I 

have the West pretty much covered. 

Mr. YOUNG. The lady from Hawaii. 

Ms. HANABUSA. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank 

you, Mr. Secretary for being here. 

Mr. Secretary, I am interested in that part of your testimony 

that talks about basically strengthening the nation-to-nation relationship, but in particular where you make the statement that investing in Indian Country, that you believe that is probably the 

most essential part of strengthening the nation-to-nation relationship. 

So, can you explain to me what you mean when you say ‘‘investing in Indian Country’’ other than the acquisition of lands in 

trusts? 

Mr. ECHO HAWK. That is a good question, Congressman, and you 

know, I emphasized in some of my comments already that we try 

very, very hard to consult with tribal nations and to listen very 

carefully. We have a formal mechanism to do that, the Tribal Interior Budget Council, and they are the ones that give us the direction about what we should be doing in terms of offering up requests 

for increases in the budget, and in this budget, you know, there are 

several decreases that have been made in order to meet the tribal 

priorities, so we listened very carefully, and we are listening to 

what the tribal leaders think are the ways that we ought to fashion 

the Indian Affairs budget in Interior to figure out their objections. 

Most of these things connect with economic development. 

23 

Ms. HANABUSA. You are requesting $42.3 million programmatic 

increases for contract support, self-determination, contract specialist and social workers, and that is all in the context of Indian 

Country. So how exactly contract support part of investing in 

Indian Country? 

Mr. ECHO HAWK. This is the top priority of the Tribal Interior 

Budget Council because it strengthens the tribal capacity to manage Federal programs and gives them flexibility once these allocations are made to be able to manage the money that they receive 

for these core programs, and this $25.5 million request for increase 

will help to get that contract support up to about 90 percent. Tribal 

leaders, of course, would like that to be all the way up to 100 percent because, you know, they receive money for Federal programs, 

but they don’t have—without contract support they don’t have the 

administrative capability to really take care of those, and so they 

end up taking money from the actual programs in order to administer. So, one of these days we hope to be able to reach that 100 

percent level, and this is the top priority of the tribal leaders that 

we consult with. 

Ms. HANABUSA. The energy initiative that you touched upon, I 

guess that is the economic development portion of it in the Office 

of Indian Energy and Economic Development I guess is where it is 

going to be found. I am just curious, if you can give us a quick rundown of exactly what types of energy initiatives that is going on 

and whether or not these are exportable, salable types of ventures 

outside of Indian County. 

Mr. ECHO HAWK. Well, the Office of Indian Energy and Economic 

Development, they work with tribes to—well, they listen to tribal 

leaders express their desire to develop their lands and resources, 

and provide professional and expert counsel to be able to connect 

them up, for instance, with other Federal programming, and we 

have some money available to help start some of those projects. 

We would be happy to provide the Committee with a detailed explanation of the various activities of this program within the Office 

of the Assistant Secretary. 

Ms. HANABUSA. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you. We will have a second round for all the 

Members. 

Mr. Echo Hawk, I don’t really have a big argument with the 

budget. I do think some of the areas that concern me, like I think 

it was $2 million in answering an EPA violation deeply disturbs me 

because it is taking the money hand from one group and hand it 

to another group, take it away from you, it helps the Native 

groups, which brings me—one of my goals is to make sure that as 

other agencies are interfering with your operations or with the operations of the tribal lands, and projects cannot be completed, how 

do you respond to those agencies? What is your role? 

Mr. ECHO HAWK. Mr. Chairman, you know, I oftentimes hear as 

I travel across Indian Country and that has been a lot of travel because I have been in 38 states in the last 21 months visiting with 

tribal leaders, that they want me to be their voice back here in 

Washington, D.C. in dealing with other departments and agencies 

of the Federal Government, and sometimes that is even within— 

24 

in fact a lot of times even within Interior because Indian Affairs, 

tribal nations sometimes have conflicts with other agencies and departments, so I am supposed to be their advocate and I try my best 

to do that. 

Mr. YOUNG. What I am suggesting is in this legislation as a nation dealing with another nation I don’t think we have the right 

to implement laws that don’t benefit that nation. We don’t do it to 

Canada, we don’t do it to India, we don’t do it to Japan, we don’t 

do it to Russia, and I am thinking that maybe we ought to expedite 

or at least streamline the ability for a tribe to develop energy resources if they wish to do so instead of delaying it because your 

voice may be strong, but the other agencies they will thumb their 

nose at you, as they have a habit of doing. 

So, as we work together I would like to work with you and see 

if there is some way that we can write legislation that will expedite 

that process instead of slowing it down and giving reason to lawsuits could occur because they can never get anything done on 

these lands, and I go back to the is concept the highest poverty 

level, the highest alcoholism, the highest drug use, the highest unemployment, the highest dental problems, the highest lack of education problems reside in our reservations. 

Now, there has been some successes. Some of those successes like 

the Seneca Tribe in New York is because they are outside of the 

trust relationship, and I just think that we have to open this box 

up to make sure that we have an opportunity to give them the opportunity. My opening statement was that there are 100 million 

acres of land, bigger than the State of California, and yet we have 

those high records of what I call Third World poverty, and so I 

want you to put your thinking cap on and we will work on this together. 

Which reminds me, unemployment rate in the reservations are 

what? Do you have any idea? 

Mr. ECHO HAWK. Mr. Chairman, overall the unemployment rate 

as I recall for Indian tribes is in the neighbor of 60 percent, as high 

as 85 percent in some communities, so we are facing a very challenging situation. In the United States we are alarmed when we 

have unemployment near 9 percent, but it is not uncommon to see 

those unemployment rates higher than 80 percent in Indian Country. 

Mr. YOUNG. If you were to take out the BIA jobs, the government 

jobs, the government supported job, it would probably be around 90 

percent. 

Mr. ECHO HAWK. Congressman, it may be that case. 

Mr. YOUNG. Well, see, again, I want to emphasize that because 

we have not done a good job, and by the way, Mr. Echo Hawk, you 

are just the last horse in this parade. I have watched all the horses 

before for the last 40 years, so don’t feel bad. You just have to walk 

through all that other stuff they left behind, you know, but be careful and try to miss it, but this is why I am so excited about trying 

to do something that will make them raise above all those terrible 

numbers I just recited so that you will be able to achieve, I think, 

a great step forward if we do this together. 

There will be people that object to this, you and I know that, but 

there may be ways that we can work together to make sure the 

25 

agencies don’t keep putting their foot on top of their heads, special 

interest don’t put their foot on top of their head and they allow 

them to come up and do the things I think they are capable of 

doing. 

I am going to start another round—sorry, he is late. His first 

question could be his deal, but Mr. Pallone, if you would like to go 

ahead. You are going to wait a minute, we are starting the second 

round? 

Mr. PALLONE. I will do whatever you want. 

Mr. YOUNG. Go ahead, you have to five minutes for the first 

round. 

Mr. PALLONE. All right, thank you. Let me thank you, Chairman 

Young, and also our Ranking Member Boren for holding the hearing and allow me to ask a few questions, and I just wanted to say 

I am glad that we have this newly formed Subcommittee, and I 

think it is a place where you can have a lot of new innovative solutions to the challenges that face Indian Country, and I know that 

both of you are certainly long-time friends of Indian Country. 

The first question is that I believe that strong and stable tribal 

governments that establish self-determination are fundamental to 

the success of Indian Country. However, a major obstacle has been 

placed in the way of improving the trust relationship with the 

Carcieri decision. And since, you know, we fixed it in the House but 

it did not pass the Senate. A major concern of mine is that states 

and localities in some cases have begun to extend the reach of the 

regulations and taxes to newly acquired non-trust Indian lands. 

So, first, what actions are being taken to prevent states and localities from taxing sovereign tribes on these lands? And second, is 

there room in the budget request to provide assistance to tribes 

that are affected by the negative consequences that have resulted 

from Carcieri? Talking about tribes that purchase lands now own 

lands but because of Carcieri they are not in trust. We are hearing 

a lot of things are happening where the states and the towns are 

trying to tax them, regulate them. Is there anything to prevent 

that? Is there anything we can do to help out when those circumstances arise? I ask either of you, and I hope it hasn’t been 

asked already; otherwise you can tell me that, too. 

Mr. ECHO HAWK. Congressman, I have previously commented 

about the Carcieri decision and noted that the Obama Administration has stood up strong in support of the legislative fix. 

Mr. PALLONE. Well, I know we all want to fix it and I appreciate 

that, but what I am asking you absent that I am being told by 

some tribes, and you know, we had NCAI, USET, NAGA, everybody has been in town in the last few weeks, and some of them 

have said to me that the states and the towns are not taxing those 

lands because they are not in trust, regulating those lands that is 

contrary to sovereign relationship because they think they can do 

it because they are not in trust. 

I guess, is there anything we can do to prevent that or is there 

anything we can do to help out with the budget or something in 

those cases, or maybe you are not even aware that these things 

have arisen but I am hearing that they have? 

Mr. ECHO HAWK. Congressman, actually when the USET organization met here just recently, I appeared in front of them and 

26 

spoke and answered questions, and they brought this issue up with 

me, and we committed to work with them to try to see what we 

could do on that issue, and I would be happy to meet with you and 

see what we can work on together. 

Mr. PALLONE. If you could get back to me. I am not a member 

of the Subcommittee, so I have to ask through the Chairman. If 

you want to get back to me, I would appreciate it, but I know that 

is a concern. 

Does Mr. Joseph want to respond to that? 

Mr. JOSEPH. Thank you, Congressman Pallone. At this time I am 

not really up to speed on this matter. I have only been in place 

about two months, but I am more than happy to work with—— 

Mr. PALLONE. Well, then let me get back to the two of you with 

the permission of the Chair, Mr. Boren. 

The second thing I wanted to ask is, I will as this of Assistant 

Secretary Hawk, and I think this did come up about the reduction 

in the budget for the Indian Guarantee Loan Program, the $5.1 

million that has been suggested. I mean, this is one of the few avenues for financing a lot of tribal economic development activities 

which obviously are so important with the recession. 

Are there any other loan guarantee or financing programs that 

exist that could improve upon or replace the guaranteed loan program and fill this gap? I mean, obviously, you know, I don’t like 

to see that kind of reduction, but are there other types of economic 

development opportunities that can fill the void of this program? 

That would be my second question. 

Mr. ECHO HAWK. Indian Country feels very strongly that this is 

a good program. It has been used very well in the last few years. 

There are some concerns that have been raised about whether or 

not it is duplicative with other resources within the Federal Government. There has been a cut in funding this year, but there is 

a resolve to try to evaluate this. 

Mr. PALLONE. Well, what are the other things that could replace 

it or that could help them with economic development of a similar 

nature? You say it may be redundant, but what are the other 

things that are available? 

Mr. ECHO HAWK. I believe there is the SBA, and also I think 

something in the Department of Agriculture that has money available for development. 

Mr. PALLONE. Now, it seems to me that is—I mean, look, again, 

my time is up, but it seems to me that if you are talking about 

eliminating or significantly reducing it, you know, there is going to 

be a void, and either you should keep it or come up with something 

else that is specific to tribes. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Pallone. Mr. Boren. 

Mr. BOREN. Thank you, Mr, Chairman. I am going to go back to 

Mr. Joseph since a lot of attention has been toward Secretary Echo 

Hawk. 

Since the passage of Cobell, the Cobell settlement, it is clear that 

land probating and fractionated interest costs the U.S. Government 

far more money than the land is worth. It is just a real issue. What 

is being done to prevent fractionated interest from continuing to accrue such costs? That is the first question. 

27 

Is the small amount of funding available enough to make a dent 

in the number of fractionalized land interests, and what kind of 

oversight is put into place to ensure the problem is handled effectively? 

This reminds me of an issue, this is a separate—we have in our 

district right now the Corps of Engineers is trying to transfer like 

20 acres of land that they don’t want to some economic development entity. Anyway, the land is only worth about $100,000, but 

it is going to cost a million dollars to transfer it. That makes us 

all look bad. That makes government look bad. And so what are 

you all doing again with this small amount of money? How is this 

all going to work out and would be happy to hear your response? 

Mr. JOSEPH. Thank you, Congressman Boren. The Cobell case, it 

remains in active litigation at this time, and it is under the U.S. 

District Court of District of Columbia under Justice Hogan. Currently we are looking at evaluating certain issues dealing with fractionation internally but until the final settlement is approved we 

are just in that pattern. We are not allowed to proceed any further 

than that. We also need to consult before that as well. 

So, at this time there isn’t any plan related to Cobell. You asked 

several questions so I wanted to make sure I answered that piece 

first. 

And then we also looked at buying it probate on an ongoing basis 

to deal with fractionation in the traditional sense in an ongoing 

every day basis, but there are two parts to your question, correct? 

Mr. BOREN. That is correct. Let me go back then again. So let 

us say that everything gets worked out, there is a final settlement. 

Do you feel like you have enough resources to do this from your 

position? 

Mr. JOSEPH. At this time we are still in very preliminary early 

stages on planning for this internally. I wouldn’t be in a position 

to comment on that at this time. I wouldn’t want to misrepresent 

any ideas or concepts because we haven’t identified all the things 

that need to be addressed. 

For example, when you are purchasing land it is appraisals, titles, survey, and ownership. There are a lot of different pieces that 

need to be addressed. So I think it is important that we look at it 

in a comprehensive manner and come back with a comprehensive 

plan. 

Mr. BOREN. Well, this is going to be an ongoing issue that we are 

probably going to be dealing with in the Subcommittee, so if you 

could keep us informed, keep my office and the Chairman’s staff informed that would be great. 

In the interest of time let me go to one other question. Then I 

will turn it back to the Chairman. This is for Secretary Echo 

Hawk. 

I have seen the budget. There are many increases in funding 

that provide for more personnel among many agencies. There is 

money to hire social workers, natural resource specialists, police officers and administrative acquisition staff, among others. What, if 

any, measures are taken to ensure that Native Americans are recipients of these new jobs? 

Mr. ECHO HAWK. With the jobs that are created in these initiatives that have increased funding, these would be jobs that fall 

28 

under the auspices of Indian preference. So, you know, whatever 

jobs are out there if there are qualified Indians they will be hired. 

Mr. BOREN. I mean, do you feel like at the Bureau that it is adequately addressed, that you have, you know, percentagewise, I 

mean, could you give us some facts and figures? I know you don’t 

have it off the top of your head but maybe you could share with 

our staffs so that we could know. Again, this is my first time to 

really delve into some of these matters, and we do this in a lot of 

different agencies, but it would be great to have some of those 

numbers and to know what Indian Country, as I am sure it is represented, the numbers which tribes from across the Nation are represented in these portions of the budget. 

Mr. ECHO HAWK. Congressman Boren, I would be happy to give 

you some detailed information that we may be able to come up 

with in response to your question. In the travels that I have done 

across the Indian Country since we have had some funding increases in—just recently I have actually been on site where I have 

heard from tribal leaders express appreciation for the jobs that 

have been created in their communities. 

Mr. BOREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you. I am going to use discretion of the Chair. 

Mr. Joseph, I understand, or Mr. Echo Hawk, I understand the Department is informing tribal leaders that a court order prevents departmental officials from discussing the settlement and its elements, including the land consultation plan, until the judge approves the settlement. 

What court order are you referring to? Anybody want to answer 

that? 

Mr. ECHO HAWK. Congressman Young. 

Mr. YOUNG. We have the lawyers now. 

Mr. ECHO HAWK. Congressman Young, for myself, I am recused 

from the Cobell issues, so that is the primary reason I cannot respond, but perhaps someone—— 

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Joseph can answer. I need to find out what 

Court we are—yes? 

Mr. JOSEPH. Chairman Young, it is the no contact order. 

Mr. YOUNG. It is a what? 

Mr. JOSEPH. It is the no contact order. 

Mr. YOUNG. See, you are going to be $1.8 billion eventually to 

consolidate these lands. You have to have a plan. 

Mr. JOSEPH. I understand. 

Mr. YOUNG. And I will tell you I will make sure before this goes 

any further I am going to see that plan because that is a lot of 

money. The leaders don’t know what is going to happen. Nobody 

knows anything. You guys are running around in transparency 

with an iron suit on. I mean, why can’t you guys answer that question? 

All right, go ahead, Mr. Joseph. How long have you been the job, 

by the way? 

Mr. JOSEPH. Two months, sir. 

Mr. YOUNG. I am not going to pick on you so go right ahead. 

Mr. JOSEPH. Thank you. Until the judge issues the settlement, 

there is a no contact order, and there is currently a period right 

now until April 20th where it is the opt-out period, so we aren’t 

29 

contacting any of the class members for that reason. Plaintiffs are 

response for doing that at this time. 

Mr. YOUNG. Well, is there a timeframe on this settlement as far 

as the judge? 

Mr. JOSEPH. I believe the date is June 20th is the fairness hearing date. 

Mr. YOUNG. Hearing date, but that won’t be the settlement date. 

Mr. JOSEPH. No, sir, I believe—well, let me check with the attorney just to be sure. 

Chairman Young, after the June 20th date the judge at his discretion will be issuing his final order. 

Mr. YOUNG. So it is up to him. What I am going to do is, you 

know, I want you gentlemen to keep us informed because I am not 

about to disburse $1.8 billion without a plan, and who is going to 

receive what, how it is going to be done because this is important. 

I believe there is about 4.1 million fractionated cases and 100,000 

fraction tracts and this is something that we are going to have to 

be looking at. I hope the lawyers in this room are representative 

once that huge amount of money, $223 million, and still not settled, 

so that is another question were going down the line. When that 

gets done, they may be excited with me. 

You are good? Jeff, have you got some questions? 

Mr. DENHAM. Yes, I just wanted to follow up again. Certainly I 

have concerns with the fish and wildlife protections and the funding levels that those are at, but specifically I want to go back to 

the economic development portion of this. You have a 20 percent 

cut there. 

Will all the cuts in the administrative budget slow down and further hinder tribes from acquiring the permits and approval they 

are required to sustain their communities? And do you have any 

timeline on the length of time it takes to get the majority of these 

different permits, whether they be housing permits or lease agreements? 

Mr. BLACK. Good morning. Thank you, Congressman. I am Mike 

Black, Director of the BIA. 

I would be happy to get back with you on the exact number and 

figures, about approximate times it takes for a lease, and that is 

going to vary, dependent upon the type of lease that we are dealing 

with or permit; whether it be a home site lease, an oil and gas permit, or agricultural or grazing permit type situation. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. I would like to see the different types 

of permits but also to see if they vary from state to state. 

Mr. BLACK. That is right. 

Mr. DENHAM. And then specifically on this cut itself do you have 

the procedures in place so that it does not get any worse that it 

already is today? 

I think we all recognize that it is not good, but is it going to get 

worse with the 20 percent cut? 

Mr. BLACK. I don’t believe the cuts that are in that area really 

pertain or are particular to that area dealing with our leases and 

our agricultural programs for the most part, and I don’t believe 

what is there will directly affect our ability to carry out those missions. 

30 

Mr. DENHAM. And are there steps in place to remove unnecessary 

burdens and bureaucratic blockages that currently cause slow 

downs in this area? 

Mr. BLACK. We are currently undergoing a number of different 

initiatives to look at our processes, and also in our regulations with 

business leasing, that would hopefully expedite and streamline 

some of those processes. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. I would like to see some specifics on 

that. 

And one issue that is of concern to me as somebody from California, we have a lot of duplication in the different regulations that 

you must go through, and we wonder if specifically in this area if 

the Administration would be willing to look at waiving NEPA when 

SEQA is involved. You have to go through the SEQA process which 

is obviously much more onerous than the NEPA process. Would 

NEPA be able to be waived in those cases? And you can get back 

to me on that one. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

Mr. ECHO HAWK. Mr. Chairman and Congressman, just a brief 

comment on your question. 

We presently are looking at a revision of the leasing regulations. 

It is Part 162, and it does touch on business leases, and the aim 

of this revision or amendment would be to streamline the process 

for purpose of advancing economic development and energy development, and consultations on the lease revisions are going to start 

next week, so tribal leaders all across the country will be able to 

give comment on the proposed changes which have already been 

sent to them. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Kildee. 

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, just looking around this Committee today I feel very 

encouraged. You know, we are all kind of new on this Committee. 

This is a slightly new Committee. We haven’t had one for a long 

time. But I am encouraged when I see the makeup of the Committee. It is very, very good. 

While Mr. McClintock is not really new, he is kind of new. We 

are all new on this Committee, and I look forward to working with 

Mr. Denham on issues that we have mutual interest in, and Ms. 

Hanabusa from Hawaii, but I just feel encouraged that we have 

put together a very good working Committee on this issue. 

Let me ask one question. On your nation-to-nation program 

where you have funding of $42.3 million, what activities or mission 

do you foresee them being involved in, and how will it be able to 

help particularly the smaller tribe who don’t have the resources 

very often to get involved in these various programs? 

Mr. ECHO HAWK. Within the nation-to-nation initiative where we 

are asking for a $42.3 million increase, the centerpiece or foundation of that initiative is the contract support, and this is the top 

priority, as I mentioned, from our tribal leaders that we consult 

with, and we have been told, you know, in those meetings that the 

tribes would be interested in contracting or compacting additional 

programs. I think we have about 3,200 programs that have already 

been contracted, but the tribes would like to do more of that so 

31 

within this initiative there is $4 million that is requested to go into 

the Indian Self-Determination Fund that would allow more tribes 

to contract or compact. 

And with regard to the small tribes, our concern there is that all 

tribes should be able to operate the very basic programs of the tribal government, and oftentimes if you are real small you cannot do 

that, so we give special attention to those tribes that have populations of less than 1,700 or tribal priority allocation of under $160 

for the lower 48 and I think it is 200,000 for the Alaska tribes. So, 

we are putting more money into that fund to try to raise those 

tribes up to a certain threshold. 

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you very much. I am very encouraged by 

that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Luja ́n. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Mr. Secretary, over 90 percent of the Jicarilla Apache Nation’s 

government operations are funded with revenues from production 

of their oil and gas resources. Most of the oil and gas leasing activity on the Jicarilla Reservation is conducted in accordance with the 

Indian Mineral Leasing Act of 1938. 

The IMLA sets forth responsibilities on the Federal Government, 

specifically on the Secretary of the Interior, to manage and regulate mineral leasing so as to ensure maximum benefit to the tribes. 

Despite the fact that there are at least three separate agencies 

within the Department of the Interior’s jurisdiction over Indian 

leasing—Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, 

and Minerals Management Service—the Jicarilla Apache Nation 

has suffered tremendous losses because they have not been informed of non-compliance by operators of leasees until months or 

years after non-compliance has occurred. 

If non-compliance is not addressed, leasees go into bankruptcy, 

and use tribal leases as leverage. Tribes then have to spend valuable and sparse resources to battle leasees in Bankruptcy Court. 

I want to elevate this issue to your level because these are Federal leases and the Department has the trust responsibility to the 

tribes. This affects the nation’s ability to collect due revenues, royalties, taxes which directly impacts the Jicarilla Nation’s ability to 

provide essential government services to tribal members and reservation residents. 

In the budget I notice there are program reductions for real estate services and minerals and mining projects. My questions are, 

will these budget reductions prevent BIA from adequately addressing the notification of non-compliance issues and what is the Agency doing to address the issue of non-compliance, and will you be 

willing to work with the Jicarilla Apache Nation to resolve this 

issue? 

Mr. ECHO HAWK. Congressman Luja ́n, with the Chairman’s permission I would like to ask the Bureau of Indian Affairs director 

to respond. 

Mr. YOUNG. I have no objection. 

Mr. BLACK. Thank you, Congressman. 

In response to the budgetary questions, we did an evaluation of 

the Jicarilla agency budget, and the cuts that are made in those 

32 

certain areas won’t have an effect on our ability to carry out our 

responsibilities under the oil and gas leasing. 

In response or in regards to the compliance with the contracts 

and the leases, that is a shared responsibility between ourselves 

and Office of Natural Resource Revenue, formerly MMS, and we 

rely on MMS to notify us in times when a leasee is non-compliant 

in their payments, and we are going to have to be working closer 

with ONRR in order to ensure that we get timely notification of 

those things so that we can fully enforce our compliance requirements. 

In addition, we are going to work—we need to work closer with 

the Jicarilla Apache Tribe regarding bonding issues to determine 

if that is a factor involved here, and then looking at any other best 

course of action that we can. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, what I would hope is that 

if this is another aspect of MMS that is broken, that we fix it because not notifying them and then forcing them to go into litigation, wasting valuable resources is not the way to encourage being 

responsible when it comes to our resources, so I hope that is something we can look at. 

One other project that I am concerned about is on the Navajo 

Nation Indian Irrigation Project. This is a project where we are 

seeing a reduction of $9 million in the 2012 budget, and as you 

know, after years of intense negotiations between the United 

States and the Navajo Nation, in 1962 the Congress enacted the 

Navajo Indian Irrigation Project to fulfill in part the U.S. treaty obligation with regard to water supplies. 

I am not sure why this project is being reduced, but I would certainly encourage that in light of the legal obligations still in place 

that we pursue equitable resolutions from the Department, and Mr. 

Chairman, I am respectful of our time as well, this is something 

that I, without any objection, would gladly submit it for the record 

so we can get a response a little bit later. 

Mr. YOUNG. That is good. Without objection. 

The young lady from Hawaii. 

Ms. HANABUSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I 

would like to thank you for your very strong statements of true nation-to-nation relationship. 

Mr. Secretary, as I understand it and you mentioned it prior in 

response to someone about the statements regarding the schools 

that were built under the ARRA funds. Now, it is also my understanding from the report compiled by the Council of Environmental 

Quality that NEPA actions for projects under the ARRA was also 

part of that review, and there were 113 schools, 190 housing 

projects, and 379 road projects, and they were all reviewed under 

NEPA as I understand it,and still the constructions were able to 

go forward. 

Can you tell us whether there was any problems with that or 

how did that process work so successfully? 

Mr. BLACK. Congresswoman, in response to that, you know, the 

NEPA process was basically the standard process we follow with 

all of our construction projects regardless of the type, whether it be 

road maintenance, road construction or facilities construction, and 

we were just essentially able to do that somewhat in an expedited 

33 

fashion I think in some cases, but generally it fell under our normal processes which in some cases is somewhat different in construction that we are dealing with in the area of leases. 

Ms. HANABUSA. But this is standard modus operandi for all of 

you for all of the projects that are covered under the AARA. You 

didn’t have anything special in some footnote under AARA that allowed you to ignore it or anything like that? 

Mr. BLACK. No, ma’am, not that I am aware of. 

Ms. HANABUSA. But you did use the word ‘‘expedited’’. What was 

that? 

Mr. BLACK. We put additional resources where necessary in some 

of those program areas in order to get these dollars out on the 

street. 

Ms. HANABUSA. So it was more expedited by yourself than—— 

Mr. BLACK. Yes. 

Ms. HANABUSA.—then process itself? 

Mr. BLACK. Yes. 

Ms. HANABUSA. Thank you. 

Mr. Secretary, there is something that I was interested in from 

your prior testimony. I am also a strong advocate of the nation-tonation relationship. You said something in response to my question, that that is a priority for Indian Country, and we were talking 

about the contract aspects. When you say that is a priority for 

Indian Country, can you define for me who do you mean when you 

say Indian Country, and what is the consultation process that you 

go through so that you can speak for Indian Country? 

Mr. ECHO HAWK. Congresswoman Hanabusa, it is probably the 

law professor part of me coming out when I say Indian Country because that is a legal term of art that actually describes the jurisdiction of the United States that comes with special obligations, and 

we have 565 tribes that are Federally recognized, so that is the nation-to-nation relationship that we have. 

Ms. HANABUSA. But when you speak on behalf of Indian Country 

who are you speaking on behalf of? Are you speaking on behalf of 

the majority of 565 tribes or are you just surmising from your conversations with 565 tribes that this particular issue is their number one priority? 

Mr. ECHO HAWK. Well, you know, Congressman Hanabusa, I 

need to be more careful in probably some words that I say, but a 

few minutes ago I said that I try to advocate the positions from 

Indian Country, and oftentimes tribal leaders ask me to do that, 

but I was going to make a follow-up comment to the Chairman that 

those tribes are very capable of speaking for themselves, and you 

know, they may ask me to be their advocate, but you know, I need 

to always recognize that their voices is the more important voice 

when they communicate nation to nation. It is not the Assistant 

Secretary’s voice that really counts as much as their own. 

Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Chairman, what I would like to know, and 

you can respond to me in writing if the Chairman permits this, is 

what if there is a conflict among the tribes? Who then speaks for 

Indian Country or what is the position if you come before us and 

you tell us this is Indian Country’s position? 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

34 

Mr. ECHO HAWK. Congressman, I would simply go back to that 

same comment that their voice is the more important, especially if 

there is conflict because I cannot speak for both sides. 

Mr. YOUNG. I thank all the Members. We are going to bring this 

meeting to a halt. I will say one thing for the lady from Hawaii. 

There will always be conflict in Indian politics. That is one of the 

most difficult things we face, and my urging to them is not to be 

too much of a conflict to work together to achieve goals. I have seen 

it work. It can be fantastic. Where there is division you are going 

to die, and when you are a unity you are going to really survive 

and progress and that is very important. 

I want to thank the two witnesses. There will be written questions submitted to you. We hope you get the answers back as soon 

as possible and, for the rest of the Members, keep in mind this is 

a proposal of the President’s and these people have been speaking 

for the President and presented their points of view, and our job 

is to write the budget. That is our job now to convey what we believe is correct to the appropriate appropriations committee so we 

will write a budget to try to solve the problems, and where there 

is a difference with the President, we will solve that problem. This 

is not Democrat and Republican. We only have one constituency to 

represent, and I believe we can do that. 

With that, this meeting is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:33 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ