1 

INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED 

AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2014 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE A 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND 

RELATED AGENCIES 

MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho, Chairman 

KEN CALVERT, California 

TOM COLE, Oklahoma 

TOM GRAVES, Georgia 

JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington 

DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio 

DAVID G. VALADAO, California 

JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia 

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota 

CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine 

JOSE ́ E. SERRANO, New York 

NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Rogers, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mrs. Lowey, as Ranking 

Minority Member of the Full Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees. 

DAVID LESSTRANG, DARREN BENJAMIN, JASON GRAY, 

ERICA RHOAD, and COLIN VICKERY, 

Staff Assistants 

PART 6 

Page 

Indian Education Oversight Hearing ................................. 1 

Water Infrastructure Oversight Hearing .......................... 217 

Indian Health Oversight Hearing ........................................ 405 

Department of the Interior FY 2014 Budget Oversight 

Hearing ................................................................................... 551 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

81–687 WASHINGTON : 2013 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
2 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky, Chairman 

C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida 1

FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia 

JACK KINGSTON, Georgia 

RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey 

TOM LATHAM, Iowa 

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama 

KAY GRANGER, Texas 

MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida 

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas 

RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana 

KEN CALVERT, California 

JO BONNER, Alabama 

TOM COLE, Oklahoma 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

TOM GRAVES, Georgia 

KEVIN YODER, Kansas 

STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas 

ALAN NUNNELEE, Mississippi 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida 

CHARLES J. FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee 

JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington 

DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio 

DAVID G. VALADAO, California 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

————— 

1 Chairman Emeritus 

NITA M. LOWEY, New York 

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio 

PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana 

JOSE ́ E. SERRANO, New York 

ROSA L. DELAURO, Connecticut 

JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia 

ED PASTOR, Arizona 

DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina 

LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California 

SAM FARR, California 

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania 

SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR., Georgia 

BARBARA LEE, California 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California 

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota 

TIM RYAN, Ohio 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas 

CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

WILLIAM L. OWENS, New York 

WILLIAM E. SMITH, Clerk and Staff Director 

(II)


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
(1) 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 

2014 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2013. 

OVERSIGHT OF INDIAN EDUCATION 

WITNESSES 

HON. KEVIN WASHBURN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

GEORGE A. SCOTT, DIRECTOR, EDUCATION, WORKFORCE AND INCOME SECURITY ISSUES, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

HEATHER SHOTTON, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL INDIAN EDUCATION ASSOCIATION 

OPENING REMARKS OF CHAIRMAN SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. Good morning and welcome to the first 

hearing of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior, 

Environment, and Related Agencies of the 113th Congress. Before 

we get started today, allow me to take a moment to welcome our 

returning members and our many other members who hopefully 

will be here to be welcomed when they get here. 

Of the programs within this subcommittee’s jurisdiction, I think 

it is fair to say that there is more that Republicans and Democrats 

can agree on than disagree on, and I hope we continue to work well 

together on these things that we value and that we strive to find 

common ground on those things, no matter what is happening beyond these doors. 

Almost a year ago today, our subcommittee was sitting here with 

then-Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, Mr. Larry Echo Hawk, 

a good friend of mine and Mr. Cole’s. Mr. Cole asked about perpupil expenditures at BIE versus non-BIE schools. We followed 

that up with a formal request to the GAO to look into the matter— 

in effect to update and expand upon studies they conducted several 

prior years. At the time, we thought we were asking GAO to answer a relatively simple question. 

Fast-forward to January of 2013 when the GAO informed the 

subcommittee that their final report will not be ready until July 

2013 and that the subcommittee should be aware of significant 

management challenges at both the Bureau of Indian Education 

and the Bureau of Indian Affairs that are affecting their ability to 

deliver quality education. 

The GAO reminds us that these are not new management challenges and this is not the first time that problems within Indian 

education have been reported. This is also not the first time that 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

this subcommittee has attempted to help turn things around, but 

we must keep at it not only to ensure that things do turn around 

but that they stay that way. It is simply the right thing to do. 

Therefore, these management challenges, coupled with recent or 

soon-to-be turnover at key leadership positions within the Department of the Interior and the Bureaus, has prompted this subcommittee to convene this hearing now before the GAO actually 

completes its finding so that the subcommittee can be in a stronger 

position to take any necessary corrective action as part of the fiscal 

year 2014 budget process. To wait would be to miss a narrow window of opportunity and I believe the children have waited long 

enough for this already. 

Some people have wondered why we are doing this now rather 

than waiting for the GAO report. We will probably be writing our 

bill. In fact, we will be writing our bill before the GAO report 

comes out. We wanted some preliminary information from them 

and to talk with you if there are things we need to do in our budget 

that can help turn around the situation. 

The United States Government has a unique and well-documented moral and legal responsibility to help educate American Indian children, a responsibility that goes far beyond the $2.5 billion 

in direct federal spending in fiscal year 2012, of which this subcommittee’s contribution was 35 percent. What is happening outside the classroom and outside the BIE has just as much impact 

on student success as what is happening inside, if not more. Many 

complicated factors come into play and many more people no doubt 

are working hard to help students succeed. 

But as we step back to evaluate our efforts, when we look at the 

condition of those schools and the roughly 48,000 students directly 

under the BIE’s responsibility, and when we look at measures of 

progress such as test scores, graduation rates, and employment, 

and we see the disparity that no doubt our witnesses will testify 

to today, one thing is perfectly clear to me—that we can and we 

must do better than this. 

So I am interested in us having a constructive and productive 

discussion today and in the days ahead about how we can help the 

agency succeed. Whether it will be not just funding but also legislation, policy, a gentle nudge, a swift kick, any of those types of 

things, I am interested in putting all options on the table for consideration of helping in this area. 

With that, let me welcome our witnesses here today as well as 

our distinguished guests in the audience and the many tribes and 

tribal organizations around the country who are submitting written 

testimony for the record. Thank you all for your commitment and 

your assistance in helping us help you. 

Our first panelist is Hon. Kevin Washburn, the newest Assistant 

Secretary for Indian Affairs at the Department of the Interior. Welcome aboard, Mr. Washburn. You will be supported by Acting Director of Bureau of Indian Education, Mr. Brian Drapeaux, and Director of Bureau of Indian Affairs, Mr. Michael Black. Because Indian education activities are implemented by both bureaus, it is 

helpful to have both of you here today. 

After Mr. Washburn testifies, we thought we would take some 

questions from the committee, but I think what we will probably 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 

do is have the director of the GAO and Dr. Heather Shotton, the 

President of the National Indian Education Association, testify, and 

then we can have you all sit at the table together and answer these 

questions. And what we really want is a discussion about what are 

we going to do to improve the quality of education for our Indian 

children in this country. And what can we do to help? 

So I appreciate your being here. Today’s ranking member, Mr. 

Moran, is not here. Betty McCollum from Minnesota is taking his 

place as the ranking member. 

And do you have any opening remarks you would like to make? 

OPENING REMARKS OF CONGRESSWOMAN MCCOLLUM

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Yes, I do, Mr. Chair. And thank you very much. 

And I welcome you, Assistant Secretary Washburn, and the other 

witnesses to the subcommittee this morning as well. 

Education is a cornerstone and the foundation in which we build 

our collective future. Native American parents, like parents all 

across this Nation, look for a good education and an investment in 

a better future for their children. While Indian education is a tough 

responsibility for the Department of the Interior, it is a moral responsibility for all of us, as the chairman said. This morning, we 

will review how these responsibilities are being carried out and see 

what we can do working together to improve the Indian education 

system. 

Now, let’s face it. There is significant room for improvement in 

Indian test scores and the delivery of the Indian educational services. In Minnesota, where I am from, where we pride ourselves on 

the education of our young people, only 42 percent of Native Americans graduate high school on time. That is a shameful record. That 

rate is half of what our state sees for white students. 

We will hear today about the long-standing problems that have 

existed in Indian education. Some of these are reflection of larger 

social issues; some reflect the inconsistent direction and management and the delivery of Indian education services. And many are 

rooted in history of unacceptable low funding levels. 

I have appreciated the fact that we approach Native American 

issues in this subcommittee on a bipartisan basis. And in this spirit 

I approach this oversight hearing to see how we can work collectively together at this table to facilitate improvements in Indian 

education. 

But as we know, this is a time of restrained funding, and it has 

been a challenge to provide financial resources necessary to provide 

a quality education for Native American students. We know that 

money alone is not the answer, although it certainly helps, especially when we see the backlog on school construction and the fiscal 

state of many Indian education facilities. The heartbreaking impact 

of the condition of these schools on Indian children can be heard 

in the words of a student from Minnesota’s Leech Lake Band: ‘‘All 

13 years I have been told that education is very important. It is 

hard for me to believe this when I see how my school looks compared to other schools.’’ Well, the school is a pole barn and the temperature back home right now is in the 20 degree range. 

We are just 2 days from implementing the sequestration that will 

cut more than 5 percent of federal spending not only from Indian 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
4 

education but a whole host of other programs that serve Native 

Americans. These adverse impacts on these programs are the poster child for the senselessness of sequestration. 

And let me quote John Kennedy as I close. He said, ‘‘Our 

progress as a Nation can be no swifter than our progress in education.’’ Well, therein lies the danger of sequestration. There will 

be no progress under sequestration. And in fact, the across-theboard cuts will do real harm to much of the work that this committee has done bipartisan in the past. 

So Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding this hearing 

on Indian education, and I want to thank you for the way that we 

work together to make the lives of all children across this country, 

but especially Native American children, better. And I look forward 

to hearing the testimony of our witnesses. Thank you. 

OPENING REMARKS OF ASSISTANT SECRETARY WASHBURN

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, Congresswoman. 

Why don’t we have George Scott, the Director of Education Workforce and Income Security Issues for the Government Accountability Office come forward and then we can go from one testimony 

to the next. And also Dr. Heather Shotton, President of the National Indian Education Association. We actually have nameplates 

for you. 

Assistant Secretary, again welcome, and thank you for being 

here today to discuss this important topic with us to help us get 

an understanding of what we might be about to do to help improve 

the conditions. The floor is yours. 

Mr. WASHBURN. Thank you, Chairman, Ranking Member, and 

members of the subcommittee. It is a real honor to be here today. 

It is a real honor to hold this position. I am a member of the Chickasaw Nation from Oklahoma. I went to the same high school as 

Tom Cole and was represented by his mother in the State Legislature for a while. I am a former resident of Ms. McCollum’s district 

as well, and so it is kind of like coming home in some ways here. 

Mr. SIMPSON. I hate to ask this. Have you ever been to Idaho? 

Mr. WASHBURN. I visited Idaho and Maine and wonderful places. 

I have actually for the last 10 years or so been a teacher and/ 

or a school administrator, mostly in state educational institutions. 

I have a strong personal interest and commitment to education. My 

draw to this particular kind of public service is not for the money, 

and it is also not for altruism purely either. It is because it is such 

a rewarding job. I am sure that there are several teachers who will 

attest to that who are in the room. 

No offense to the ladies and gentlemen here, but it is much more 

fun working with students than it is working with Washington officials, for example. Not only are they more educable, it is more rewarding educating them. 

I also love to learn and I am—— 

Mr. SIMPSON. That is not a good start. Well, you know, we are 

both specializing in legislation. 

Mr. WASHBURN. That is right. That is right. 

I love to learn, too, and I have been learning a great deal in the 

last few months. Many of you have been the teachers and I am 

grateful to be here learning because that is one of life’s joys as well. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
5 

I am still very much in learning mode about our activities. Like 

it is serving in Congress, in the Administration, they do not give 

you six months to kind of get up to speed before they start making 

you make important decisions. And so I cannot whine about that 

over here, but I am a deliberative-type person. I like to be able to 

think about things before I have to start making important decisions. And there is sometimes not a lot of time for that. Just to give 

you a sense, the budget was largely in process before I even arrived—the fiscal year 2014 budget. The first draft had been done 

before I arrived at the Department. So I am trying to get up to 

speed quickly and make a difference where I can. 

I have been greatly helped by BIA Director Mike Black and Acting Director of the BIE, Brian Drapeaux. And they are both here 

with me today. And I may defer a question to them. They have 

tried to educate me and I am a willing learner, but they still know 

a lot more than I do. 

I have seen a lot of things that worry me in Indian Country, 

frankly. One of them is the school construction issue that Ms. 

McCollum raised. Soon after I got on board I sent the report over 

to Congress to talk to you about the challenges that we face in 

school construction. And that is very real to me. 

I visited Red Lake High School shortly after the shootings, getting close to 10 years ago, and that was a real eye-opening experience because I went up there. It was about a year after the shootings at Red Lake High School and I was working at the University 

of Minnesota and I went up there to recruit students. And so we 

went up there with our aim to meet with juniors because juniors 

are the students that are kind of now starting to think about college. And I think that there were something like 60 juniors in the 

junior class and only something—it was in the single digits—like 

six or seven of them were actually in school that day that I was 

there. 

And when I asked why that was, the teacher said well, the parents aren’t making their kids come to school. And whenever the 

kids said I do not want to go to school, I am scared, it is kind of 

hard to argue with them a year after a school shooting like that. 

That is tough. These school shooting problems are really detrimental. And I worry that we may have lost a generation of kids 

at Red Lake to education because of that kind of thing. And those 

are really serious, serious problems. 

I had been working really hard to get up to speed on the issues 

here in Indian education. The way I have been doing it is largely 

talking to people, the same way that you all learn. And one of the 

teachers that I met with recently said that at his school, students 

just miss more class. It is an Indian school and they miss more 

class than people do at ordinary public schools. And there are good 

reasons for it. In a small Indian community, the obligation to attend funerals and wakes and that sort of thing is very high. There 

are all sorts of cultural activities that are very important to attend. 

A lot of the schools are in rural areas and weather can be a significant factor. If a blizzard comes through in the Dakotas, it may 

make it very hard to get to school. 

And this teacher told me that on average students miss 45 days 

of school a year. And if you multiply that times 12 years, that 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
6 

comes out to losing about 3 years of education. So it is no wonder 

that some of our Indian students are not reading at grade level or 

not performing at grade level because they have actually had 3 

years less of schooling by the time they would reach graduation 

age. And that has a huge effect I think. It makes it very challenging to be successful in Indian education. 

I am told that our performance, while it does not look good objectively, is as good as state public schools that serve similar populations with similar challenges. So, we do as good a job as anyone 

does, but it is a very challenging job. 

In the Bureau of Indian Education, the schools that we run or 

that we fund serve about 5 to 10 percent of the Indian students in 

the United States. So more than 90 percent of them are in public 

schools. And so we are not a significant participant. We are an important participant, but we cannot really claim to own education of 

Indian students. That is a much broader thing than what we do. 

The students in Indian schools often have great needs. Poverty 

is rampant and all the things that go with that, learning disabilities and behavioral issues sometimes. And so we do have a difficult population. But as I said, our teachers perform as well as 

teachers in public schools. 

I recently got to go visit the Chemawa Indian School, which is 

a boarding school out in Oregon, and it was a very heartwarming 

experience. It is a 9 through 12 boarding school, so 9th grade 

through 12th grade. The students there were exceedingly engaged. 

I was there in the evening and I went to the cafeteria and I went 

to the dorms and I was in meetings all day so I did not get there 

for classroom, but I met with a lot of the teachers and then I went 

to a basketball game at Moccasin Square Garden, their gymnasium. And it was really neat. They were playing a team from a 

neighboring town that was all white. I mean all the kids were 

white and their parents were white and so the distinction between 

the communities was kind of apparent. 

But the game was started in an interesting way. Instead of the 

Star-Spangled Banner, they did a traditional flag song. And it was 

really neat to see both teams standing at attention listening to the 

flag song while they were looking at the flag. And I saw astonishment I guess at first on the faces of the team from the neighboring 

town and their parents and great interest. And it was really a nice, 

heartwarming experience because they were obviously very interested. A good flag song will run about 10 minutes. So they got the 

full experience. But it was a wonderful game and it was really neat 

to see. Sports are one thing that really engages kids and so it was 

neat to see that they are using sports in such a good way at that 

school. 

We have got a lot of things going in the Bureau of Indian Education and I am trying to get up to speed on all of these things. 

My own sort of personal background as a Chickasaw from Oklahoma is pursuing self-governance. I think that tribes generally do 

things better than federal employees can when we can empower 

the tribes and provide the underwriting and the funding for the 

tribes to run our responsibilities. In other words, I think the tribal 

employees do very well in enforcing the federal trust responsibilities, as long as we give them the support they need to carry that 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
7 

out. I do think it is a federal responsibility, but it can be executed 

best with tribal hands. 

We are working on that substantially with the Navajo Nation. 

We have about 183 schools in the BIE system. Most of those are 

now tribal schools. They are funded by us but they are run by 

tribes. And about 60 of them are on the Navajo Nation. And we are 

moving towards a single contract with the Navajo Nation so there 

will be a Navajo school district in essence. And that will leave us 

actually with a very small percentage of the number of schools that 

we actually run. So we are making great strides in the area of selfgovernance. It will be soon that we are only running a dozen 

schools or so ourselves and the rest of them are run by tribes directly. And I think that that will certainly be an improvement. 

So those are some of the things that we are working on. I know 

you have some questions and I can maybe talk a little bit more 

about those as they come up. 

[The statement of Kevin K. Washburn follows:] 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
8 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 18 81687A.001
9 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 19 81687A.002
10 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 20 81687A.003
11 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 21 81687A.004
12 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 22 81687A.005
13 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 23 81687A.006
14 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 24 81687A.007
15 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 25 81687A.008
16 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 26 81687A.009
17 

Mr. SIMPSON. I appreciate it. Thank you, Secretary. George. 

OPENING REMARKS OF MR. GEORGE A. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. 

Mr. SIMPSON. And thank you for agreeing to come and talk to us 

before your report is completed because, as I said in the introduction, there may be things hopefully within this bill that we want 

to do based on some of the findings and so forth. So it is a little 

unusual to have you come and talk before the report is done, but 

I appreciate it. 

Mr. SCOTT. Now, thank you. Our desire is always to be timely 

and responsive to your needs, so we do appreciate the opportunity 

to discuss the preliminary findings of some of our work on the 

management of the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE). In fiscal year 2011, the Federal Government provided over $800 

million to BIE schools. These schools serve about 41,000 Indian 

students living on or near reservations. Given the significant gaps 

in educational outcomes for students in BIE schools compared to 

public schools, questions remain about the extent of federal 

progress in supporting Indian education. My testimony today will 

focus on key management challenges hindering efforts to improve 

the education of Indian children and BIE’s limited governance of 

some schools. 

Over the years, there have been a number of efforts within Indian Affairs to reorganize administrative functions and improve its 

ability to support schools. However, management challenges such 

as fragmented administrative structures and frequent turnover in 

leadership have continued to hinder efforts to improve Indian education. A study commissioned by Indian Affairs to evaluate its administrative structure concluded that organizations within Indian 

Affairs do not coordinate effectively and that communication among 

them is poor. Long-standing issues such as incompatible procedures 

and the lack of clear roles among various offices can contribute to 

delays in schools obtaining needed resources. 

For example, delays in contracting have occasionally affected 

BIE’s ability to provide services for students with disabilities in a 

timely manner. Likewise, the responsibility for facilities management is also fragmented and can result in delays in addressing critical issues. For instance, one school we visited closed for a few days 

because Indian Affairs initially did not respond to their request for 

funds to replace a broken boiler. School officials in another state 

told us that they are unsure whether they should invest in additional modular classrooms because they have not been told if or 

when they will receive a new facility. 

Given the seriously poor condition of some schools, it is critically 

important that officials within Indian Affairs ensure that facility 

maintenance and construction issues are addressed in a timely, 

transparent, and consistent manner. 

Leadership turnover in Indian Affairs has exacerbated some of 

the various management challenges. Since the year 2000, there 

have been about 12 acting and permanent assistant secretaries for 

Indian Affairs, six deputy assistant secretaries for management, 

and eight Bureau of Indian Education directors or acting directors. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
18 

These are key leadership positions that should play important roles 

in strategic planning, policy development, and ensuring accountability for agency performance and program outcomes. We have 

previously reported that frequent changes in leadership may complicate efforts to improve student achievement and that the lack of 

leadership negatively affects an organization’s ability to function 

effectively and sustain focus on key initiatives. 

In addition to the management challenges, school governance remains an issue. Although BIE’s responsibilities to operate Indian 

schools are in some respects similar to those of a state education 

agency, its influence is limited because most schools are tribally operated. BIE administers and provides technical support for a number of programs funded by the Department of Education and also 

monitors schools. However, in tribally operated schools, tribes retain authority over key policies. This means that BIE must seek cooperation from tribal officials to implement reforms. For example, 

they cannot require tribally operated schools to adopt teacher and 

principal evaluation systems. 

Further complicating reform efforts, BIE schools, unlike public 

schools, have the responsibilities of both school districts and 

schools. According to BIE and Department of Education officials, 

many of these individual schools are small in size and may lack the 

organizational capacity to function as a school district. We have 

previously reported that smaller school districts may lack the resources, knowledge, or expertise necessary to provide certain services. This can at times further strain BIE’s ability to effectively 

support these schools. 

In conclusion, while its mission is clear, significant questions remain as to whether the Bureau of Indian education has the autonomy, resources, and administrative support within Indian Affairs to 

successfully achieve its goals. Accordingly, sustained attention is 

needed to address the long-standing challenges hindering efforts to 

improve Indian education. This includes the commitment to sustain 

leadership and accountability in key positions. 

Additionally, it is imperative that offices within Indian Affairs 

work together more effectively and efficiently to support schools. 

We will continue to monitor these issues as we complete our work 

and we will consider making recommendations as appropriate to 

help address these challenges. 

This concludes my statement. Thank you. 

[The statement of George A. Scott follows:] 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
19 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 32 81687A.010
20 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 33 81687A.011
21 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 34 81687A.012
22 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 35 81687A.013
23 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 36 81687A.014
24 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 37 81687A.015
25 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 38 81687A.016
26 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 39 81687A.017
27 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 40 81687A.018
28 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 41 81687A.019
29 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 42 81687A.020
30 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 43 81687A.021
31 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 44 81687A.022
32 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 45 81687A.023
33 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 46 81687A.024
34 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 47 81687A.025
35 

OPENING REMARKS OF DR. HEATHER SHOTTON

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Scott. 

Dr. Shotton, the floor is yours. 

Ms. SHOTTON. Thank you, Chairman Simpson. 

Chairman Simpson, members of the subcommittee, I must acknowledge Representative Cole, my representative from the State 

of Oklahoma. Thank you for convening this important oversight 

hearing on Indian education. My name is Dr. Heather Shotton, and 

I am the president of the National Indian Education Association. 

I am also a member of the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes of Oklahoma, the Kyowa Nation and the Cheyenne and Arapahoe Tribes. 

On behalf of NIEA, I am grateful for this opportunity to provide 

testimony and answering questions the subcommittee may have. 

NIEA was founded in 1970 and includes a large collective membership of American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian 

educators, tribal leaders, school administrators, parents, and students. NIEA and our native education partners wish to highlight 

the lack of educational parity currently affecting native students. 

In particular, our students deserve the right to attend safe, secure, 

structurally viable schools that provide learning environments conducive to equipping our children for college and future endeavors. 

Indian education is currently in nothing less than a state of 

emergency. Native children experience large disparities in academic achievement, and our students face some of the lowest high 

school graduation rates. This situation is increasingly dire for our 

students in BIE schools. 

Underlying this issue of low achievement is the issue of poor conditions of many of our schools. BIA inspectors recently identified a 

total of 120 safety deficiencies in four BIE elementary schools on 

the Rosebud Sioux Reservation alone. And even more alarming is 

a recent Interior Department report that found that the dilapidated 

condition of BIE schools have the potential to seriously injure or 

kill students and faculty. 

Some of the deficiencies that have been identified for schools in 

poor condition include classroom walls that are buckling and separating from their foundation; water leaks near electrical outlets 

and light fixtures; non-operable fire alarm systems; exposed asbestos, lead paint, mold, and water damage; and regular academic use 

of condemned buildings. 

Native children should not have to risk their lives on a daily 

basis to access the fundamental right to an education. Furthermore, research tells us that the physical condition of a school affects our ability to learn. It affects student and teacher attendance, 

teacher retention and recruitment, child and teacher health, and 

the quality of the curriculum. 

There are only two educational systems for which the Federal 

Government is directly responsible, and that is the Department of 

Defense and schools that are federally operated and federally funded tribal schools. And while the DOD fiscal year 2013 budget request of $2.7 billion includes an aggressive construction plan to improve and modernize schools, the BIA fiscal year 2013 budget request eliminates new school replacement, and this leaves our alVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:45 Jul 20, 2013 Jkt 081687 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A687P2.XXX A687P2

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
36 

ready vulnerable students attending schools in the worst conditions 

even more vulnerable. 

While BIA has recently focused on smaller projects of maintenance and upkeep due to funding constraints, this does not address 

the large-scale needs of many of the decrepit schools and continues 

to place our students and teachers at serious risk. While it is important to highlight the dire issues facing our native children, I 

also want to provide on behalf of NIEA to the subcommittee some 

sound solutions for moving native education forward. 

First, NIEA would request that the BIA release an updated BIAfunded schools in poor condition index and tribal priority construction list. One main concern is that the BIA index of schools in poor 

condition was last released in 2009. Further, the most recent BIA 

school construction priority list was released in 2004. These outdated lists are unacceptable and we request that BIA update and 

disseminate the lists. 

Secondly, NIEA requests funding for school construction and repair. NIEA understands the current fiscal climate. However, it is 

important to note that full funding is needed for completing the remaining construction projects and starting new construction 

projects to replace those facilities that are most in need. In the 

NIEA fiscal year 2014 budget request, our association requested 

school construction and repair funding to be set at $263.4 million. 

Third, we request interagency and native cooperation. There 

must be a collaboration at the federal level to ensure that funding 

is used efficiently during these times of constrained budgets. And 

additionally, any future Bureau streamlining must include direct 

regional consultations and comment periods with native partners. 

The Department of Interior should also establish a Tribal Advisory 

Committee to advise the Secretary of the Interior on policy issues 

and budget development for the BIE school system. 

Finally, NIEA recommends that the BIA continue to upgrade the 

quality of the teaching force in BIE schools. This includes researchbased professional development practice, including collaboration 

with our tribal colleges and universities. 

Mr. Chairman, subcommittee members, we appreciate your work 

to protect the funding of native programs and your continued dedication to improving native communities and protecting native education. We hope that Congress will protect and strengthen native 

education programs and funding to ensure educational parity for 

native students with non-native students. I look forward to addressing your questions. 

[The statement of Heather Shotton follows:] 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
37 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 53 here 81687A.026
38 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 54 here 81687A.027
39 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 55 here 81687A.028
40 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 56 here 81687A.029
41 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 57 here 81687A.030
42 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 58 here 81687A.031
43 

EXPECTATIONS FOR INDIAN EDUCATION

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. Thank you all for your testimony. I appreciate you all being here today. 

You mentioned, Doctor, that the conditions in schools affects the 

quality of their education and went through a variety of reasons 

why it does that and their ability to learn stuff. The one other 

thing that it does is really tell young people and students whether 

we value them or not. 

Ms. SHOTTON. Yes. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Which is probably as important as all the other 

factors put together. I appreciate your testimony and look forward 

to working with you. 

The subcommittee has been out on Rosebud, and while we did 

not go to the school, they gave us a slideshow presentation of it. 

If I can remember correctly, it was pretty ugly and most people 

would not send their kids to that condition. I have been up in 

Lapwai and have looked at the school that they just built on the 

Nez Perce Reservation and the one that they actually had to get 

out of because it was deemed unsafe. The conditions of the schools, 

I mean the physical condition of them, is really highly suspect and 

something needs to be done. 

This committee has focused on Indian health services over the 

last few years to try to make sure that we meet our responsibilities 

there. We are not completely there yet, but we are moving in the 

right direction. We need to do the same thing with Indian education. At least I think that is the feeling of most members of this 

subcommittee. 

But let me ask you, there are a lot of people who think the Federal Government should not be involved in education at all. We 

ought to get rid of the Department of Education and everything 

else. Obviously, we have a responsibility here just as we do with 

the DOD schools. What should we expect out of our Indian education system? We look at the fact that the standards or the measurements we use to address quality, whether it is buildings or 

whether it is outcomes or those other things, do not match up with 

other public schools and so forth. 

One of the hard things to do is appropriate money into a program that you think is broken. Part of the reason it might be broken is because of insufficient funds, but part of it is also, as Mr. 

Scott testified to, is the organizational structure and lack of communication between a variety of—typical Federal Government if 

you will. 

What should we expect as a committee and how can we hold the 

Department accountable for the dollars that we are giving them 

that are actually improving the quality of education? That is kind 

of a broad question, but is basically what this hearing is really all 

about. Would someone like to take that on? 

Mr. WASHBURN. Well, we do have a significant responsibility to 

Indian children, and it is a part of our trust responsibility. In certain cases, it is actually written into treaties. Some tribes have 

treaties and it is written in there that we will provide education, 

and I presume that means a quality education. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
44 

I guess one of the things that strikes me, and being somewhat 

new to this, is in the rest of the world we have sort of started looking at uniformity as being overrated. We believe in diversity now 

and we believe in specialization. And so outside of the Indian context, there are charter schools that are focused on different things. 

And so I guess I feel like to some degree we need to have an education system for Indian Nations that recognizes that what is right 

for one tribe might be different than for another tribe or community. 

And so I guess one of my concerns is that we keep flexibility in 

there. And that is one of the reasons I believe so strongly in selfgovernance. And so we have to be moving towards a system that 

recognizes a significant voice for native communities about what 

their education looks like because that will mitigate some of the 

problems that Mr. Scott mentioned about leadership at the Bureau 

of Indian Education or in the Assistant Secretary’s office. 

I hope he was listening to Dr. Shotton’s testimony because you 

can imagine the challenges of leadership in this area. Who would 

want all the responsibilities that she mentions? You are crazy to 

take on this responsibility frankly. And so it makes it hard to—— 

Mr. SIMPSON. Is that why we have such high turnover in personnel? 

Mr. WASHBURN. The job is untenable in some respects frankly. 

I mean it is difficult. This is difficult to take responsibility for that. 

I mean, the children could die on your watch. That is the kind of 

thing that she is saying. She is in essence saying that I am responsible for and Mr. Drapeaux is responsible for. That is high-stakes 

stuff. They do not pay any of us enough to be responsible for that 

sort of thing. 

Mr. SIMPSON. It is high-stakes stuff for us, too. 

Mr. WASHBURN. Well, no. I think we are together. 

CONSIDERATION OF DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ROLE

Mr. SIMPSON. Let me ask you a question that I get asked by officials within the Department of the Interior. They have asked why 

the Department of the Interior deals with Indian education. Should 

that not be in the Department of Education? And why do we deal 

with Indian Health Services? Should not that be in—and it is pretty much over in Health and Human Services. I have had officials 

within the Department of the Interior ask me that question and I 

think I know the answer. What is your response to that? 

Mr. WASHBURN. Dr. Shotton. 

Ms. SHOTTON. Thank you. Well, as a professor of Native American studies, I think I have a longer historical response to that in 

terms of why BIE is placed within the Department of the Interior, 

and I think that deals with historically how natives and tribes 

were dealt with in terms of land management and resource management and those kind of issues. I think many of us ask that 

question with the education system for our tribes and our native 

students being placed within the BIA really speaks to what hopefully is happening more recently and more interagency cooperation 

to effectively deliver a quality system of education for native students. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
45 

I think those are the things that we are speaking to, making 

sure that we are having interagency cooperation and also consultations and corporation with our tribal leaders and those that are 

charged with actually delivering the system of education on our 

reservations and in our BIA-funded schools. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Well, Doctor, you talk about interagency cooperation and Mr. Scott is talking about interdepartmental cooperation 

and communication and the lack of it. I look at the organizational 

structure in this and I think, yes, this was written by the government. It is about as confusing as you could get and makes it more 

and more difficult. Well, it is not my responsibility; it is Darren’s 

responsibility. Ultimately, do we need an organizational restructure? That is always the easy answer, but would that help or something along those lines? 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I certainly agree with Mr. Washburn 

and Dr. Shotton. This is high-stakes. These are our children that 

we are talking about here, many of whom are in unsafe schools and 

certainly not receiving an education I think we would all agree that 

they are due. That said, it is also important to make sure that at 

the federal level we hold the folks accountable who are responsible 

for running education. 

And I think this hearing is an important step in both increasing 

the transparency around some of the challenges that the Bureau of 

Indian education faces, but also ensuring that along the way we 

build in some accountability and terms of moving forward. What is 

the plan for transforming Indian education in this Nation? Have 

we brought all of the stakeholders together to make sure there is 

an agreement about the common vision for doing that? And then 

having a plan in place where we have metrics and measures so 

that we know are we making progress or not. And to the extent we 

are not, making sure we hold the appropriate officials accountable. 

I mean this is challenging. This is a challenging area. You know, 

I have been with the GAO for 25 years. This is one of the most 

challenging areas I have run across. That said, though, that is no 

excuse for not making more progress here than we have seen and 

ensuring moving forward that there is additional accountability for 

ensuring that things are done differently going forward. 

Mr. WASHBURN. Chairman, thank you. It is a very important 

question. And frankly, we have wrestled with this at the Department of the Interior. I mean the Secretary has asked me the same 

question that you just posed to us. And I think that that means 

that it is a live question and perhaps always should be a live question because we want Indian children served by the agency that 

can serve them best. 

I think it is still true that the BIA and the BIE have the closest 

relationship to tribes in the country. And at times, we have lost 

their trust but we are always working to retain their trust. And so, 

I think it is to some degree a question for Indian Country whether 

BIE should go to the Department of Education. And I think that 

they seem to have answered that question in the negative when it 

has been put to them. 

But I have to tell you that Secretary Arne Duncan over at the 

Department of Education has an enthusiasm for Indian education, 

so I have worked hard to figure out ways that we can capture that 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
46 

enthusiasm and make it work to the benefit of Indian children. Because if they are raring to go to be involved in Indian education, 

we want to provide them opportunities. 

One of the things that we have sort of been looking at is revitalization of tribal languages, native languages. And there is money 

in the budget for us, for BIE to do that. There is budget money at 

HHS and the Administration for Native Americans, ANA. And 

there is money at the Department of Education for doing that. 

Three different places with the same goal. Money is put in different 

parts of the budget. And so I am not sure that that is wrong because the private sector would say that is good to get government 

agencies competing with one another. Who can do better? 

But on the other hand, there needs to be good coordination with 

this because I have been around long enough to see that some, 

tribes that are very successful are going to get the money from all 

three of the agencies. You can imagine that a very well-positioned 

tribe might just sort of take advantage of that, and that is not necessarily what is best for Indian Country. 

So we have to coordinate together to make sure that those monies for that sort of thing are spread properly and in a just fashion, 

not just that the tribe with the best lobbyists, went and got all the 

money. But it makes it harder when it is in three different pots. 

I am not saying that it should all be in the BIE pot. I am not sure 

that that is right. It has been interesting. 

I am coming back into government. The last time I was in government was in 2002 and being back in government is different 

now because back then, and certainly throughout our history, the 

BIA was the face of the Federal Government in Indian Country. It 

is quite rewarding now to see that HUD and HHS and so many 

other Departments have a real role in Indian Country. And I think 

that that is in part a testament to the existing Presidential Administration, but it has also been building and developing over time. 

And my position, Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, is no 

longer—I am still probably the point of the spear in Indian Country, but the spearhead is much broader than it ever was before, 

which puts burdens. There are burdens and benefits. It puts a 

greater onus on us to cooperate very well with them. And I know 

OMB has tried to get us to figure out ways to force us to cooperate 

better—one of the burdens is that we need to cooperate to make 

sure the left hand knows what the right hand is doing. But it is 

a benefit to Indian Country to have the whole Administration focused on Indian Country rather than just one agency. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Yeah. 

Mr. WASHBURN. So difficult questions. 

SEQUESTRATION AND INDIAN EDUCATION

Mr. SIMPSON. Ms. McCollum. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, there are so many questions and so 

many people who can help guide us as we establish policy and we 

talked a little bit about maybe what the future should be and we 

touched on the past, but I am going to focus on the present. 

Right now, with sequestration, we have Impact Aid really being 

cut. Most of our school dollars in the Department of Education are 

forward-funded. Impact Aid is not forward-funded so this is real 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
47 

time, real cuts to schools. And for example—I know we all have examples and this is the reason why you saw me out here with my 

cell phone here—I have public schools with 100 percent Indian enrollment, three of them. So that means Impact Aid. Nett Lake is 

one school. In fact, when the boiler went out, the State of Minnesota passed a special law to fund the boiler because it was in the 

middle of the winter to get it done. 

I have two other public schools with majority Indian enrollment, 

so I have five schools that right now, as we move forward, are 

going to see the Impact Aid, which is not sufficient enough for educating students. And we are now, because it is not forward-funded. 

The checks to those districts are going to stop. 

So if you could maybe comment a little bit. We have got school 

facilities we can talk about and things like that, but the responsibility of getting Impact Aid right for Native Americans students 

who are not in BIE schools as well, too, because that is also where, 

as statistically we know, a lot of the students are being educated. 

Ms. SHOTTON. Thank you, Representative McCollum. 

I think that it is a very important point when we talk about the 

looming threat of sequestration and particularly Impact Aid and 

how that will impact some of our schools, particularly when we 

look in terms of dollars, those schools that will immediately be impacted—Red Lake School District in Minnesota, $900,000; when we 

look at Gallup-McKinley School District in New Mexico, $2.4 million. So those are some examples. Even Mr. Drapeaux mentioned 

the other day how that would affect our tribal colleges and universities, particularly Haskell Indian Nations University. 

When we talk about Impact Aid in particular, I think being more 

responsible and making sure and ensuring that those dollars actually go to native students is an issue that we have to address. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, thank you. And the reason why 

I brought that up is if we are moving forward with any possibility 

of doing the right thing—and I know that all the people around 

this table are trying to come up with a solution of how sequestration—there is no doubt in my mind. I know how hard some individuals are working particularly. As we come up with things, sometimes something like that can get forgotten in part of the solution. 

I just wanted to put it on the radar. 

TRIBAL CONSULTATION, REPLACEMENT SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION

So briefly, I would like to know, and the chairman touched on 

this, how do we get tribal consultation to help the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs and the Bureau of Indian Schools meet the diverse needs 

of tribal schools? Because one size is not going to fit all. So how 

do we do this to make sure all the different voices are heard at the 

table? 

And then I will just throw my second question in to save some 

time and just do it now. Based on conversations that I have had 

with some tribal leaders, the report that I just shared with my colleague, Ms. Pingree, is pretty eye-opening. And then, you look at 

the concerns that I am hearing that the Office of Budget and Management has zeroed out requests for replacement of school funding. 

You put that together with the GAO report and people are pretty 

alarmed and pretty concerned. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
48 

Now, you came aboard, as you so rightly put, inheriting kind of 

a process that is in place. Could you maybe share with us some 

ideas that collectively you might have on how we really do a path 

forward for replacing these schools? Because we have had different 

lists come out. We have got this list and this school district thinks 

that they are on this list and then this tribal school thinks that 

they are on this list. Then we come up with a third one, and what 

we create is distrust. What we create is conflict. And that is the 

last thing our children should be expecting from any of us to do. 

So could you maybe talk about some ideas you might have on how 

we work with tribes to straighten that out? 

Mr. WASHBURN. Thank you, Madam Ranking Member. Why don’t 

I go first? 

Tribal consultation is one of the most important things we do. 

And the Administration has been very focused on consulting with 

tribes on everything we do. There are two things going on with consultation or at least with—tribal consultation is designed to get 

input on what tribes think about how we run things. And when the 

tribes are running themselves, we do not have to do consultation. 

They get to run the programs. And so consultation is less important in that kind of context. Getting things in control at the tribal 

level will decrease some of the burdens or the pressures on consultation. 

We do actively seek consultation. Those often occur in national 

meetings or regional meetings at least and we do the best we can 

anytime we are making changes to obtain consultation. 

And let me pivot into the school construction report because we 

have methods of getting tribal consultation, but the school construction report that you are mentioning actually came about 

through a negotiated rulemaking process, which is a very, very formal way of getting consultation from Indian people about how we 

should behave. Most of the people on that negotiated rulemaking 

committee were non-federal officials. And so that report comes out 

from non-federal officials. And that is a good example of how we 

consult or at least get input more broadly than just talking to ourselves. 

School construction is a challenge. I gather that the 2004 report 

was the one we have been working on for the last 10 years and we 

have prioritized about 14 schools that were the absolute worst for 

replacement. And we have, over the course of 9 years or so, replaced 11 of those 14. And there are three left on that 2004 list. 

What this new report does is it creates a different set of criteria 

for us to look at schools with. And we need to use those criteria 

and apply them to all our facilities in Indian Country and then 

come up with a new list. We do not want to leave those last three 

schools on the old list hanging, so we have decided that we will 

continue to prioritize those three as we develop our new list. 

These are difficult questions. I will tell you that in general the 

guidance I gather that has come down in our Department is we are 

not taking good enough care of the buildings we have now, so why 

do we want to construct more? That is kind of the attitude. And 

that is the sensible thing, right? If you are not doing a good enough 

job with the buildings you have, why would you want to build more 

buildings? That is not the complete answer when you have got kids 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
49 

going to schools that are problematic. And so I have heard you loud 

and clear on that. We also got to speak yesterday privately and I 

will take that back and look at that. 

We have asked that the money not be used for school construction in our recent budgets but for repair because it is easier and 

quicker to repair a building than to build an entirely new one. But 

I am interested in looking at these issues as we continue to develop 

budgets. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. SIMPSON. I will tell you that we did the last 2 years put in 

at least enough money to build the next school on that list. OMB 

zeroed out the fund and we put money into it, and then frankly, 

we got fought in the Senate as we were trying to do some things. 

So I agree with you that the funding limits are very important. 

Let me take an opportunity to introduce Congressman Rick 

Nolan, who is in the back of the room, from Minnesota’s 8th Congressional District. And welcome. I know you have students here 

and interest in the subject. So thanks for coming to the hearing 

this morning. 

INDIAN AND NON-INDIAN EDUCATIONAL SPENDING

Mr. Cole. 

Mr. COLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And before I start, first, 

thank you for doing this hearing. I appreciate it very much and all 

the work that the staff did. And I want to thank the three of you 

because I know you have spent a lot of time preparing for this. I 

know how passionate you are. The testimony was extremely helpful 

quite frankly. 

Let me start with the very simple question that actually led to 

the hearing, and I will just address this to all of you. Mr. Secretary, you might want to take the first shot. But I was curious 

just if you compared the schools that the BIA runs, or native 

schools basically, with schools in surrounding state, the same state, 

where the resource is comparable. In other words, do we have as 

many dollars on a Native American kid where we have a federal 

responsibility as a kid right next door who has a mixture of sort 

of state, local, and a little bit of federal help too? If we are in Arizona on a reservation or in North or South Dakota, are there at 

least at the outset as many resources per student as the comparable schools that surrounding areas have? 

Mr. WASHBURN. Congressman Cole, thank you. And that sounds 

like a simple question. 

Mr. COLE. I thought it was, but it clearly was not. 

Mr. SIMPSON. That was the question that started all this. 

Mr. WASHBURN. Yeah, in government there are no simple questions. 

I will say it varies. We have schools in 23 different states, and 

in some of those states, I think it is fair to say we spend more per 

pupil, and in some of those states we spend less per pupil. And another question is how do we do compared to DOD? 

Mr. COLE. We are headed there? 

Mr. WASHBURN. Okay. Well, and the answer is it is hard to have 

a uniform answer to that since there are 23 different states that 

we could compare to and far more communities that we could comVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:45 Jul 20, 2013 Jkt 081687 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A687P2.XXX A687P2

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
50 

pare it to. And so I do not know the answer to the per-pupil spending question. This is a situation of liars, damn liars, and statistics. 

You can kind of massage the data I think to say different things 

depending on what you look at. I would love to give you a simple 

answer to a simple question, and I cannot do that. I am told that 

we do well in comparison to other schools with similar populations. 

And I think that that is fair. But I do not know at the fine-grain 

level how we do on the per-pupil portion. 

Mr. COLE. Mr. Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Certainly. Thank you for that. When we looked at 

this issue over a decade ago, which is part of the reason you asked 

us to update those numbers, we did find that, on average, per-pupil 

expenditures are a little higher for the BIE schools. However, when 

you look at similarly situated schools, or nearby public schools, it 

was relatively comparable. We are looking forward to working with 

Indian Affairs to make sure we get the necessary data to try to update those numbers, because as I said, the statistics that I cited 

were from over a decade ago. So I want to have that context 

around it. We are looking forward to being able to provide an update on that analysis. 

If I could just for one second circle back on a couple questions 

Ms. McCollum asked. In terms of tribal consultations, one of the 

things I would encourage folks at Indian Affairs to consider is to 

go beyond holding meetings with folks, and look for different opportunities to seek feedback from all the stakeholders who are involved in Indian education. This, for example, could include focus 

groups and some surveys because, oftentimes folks will tell you one 

thing face-to-face when in fact they may have some different things 

in mind if you give them an opportunity to provide feedback anonymously. So whether it is around administrative reorganization or 

some broader issues, I think it would be helpful for Indian Affairs 

to continue to consider a range of mechanisms to obtain feedback 

from affected stakeholders. 

The second issue in terms of the schools’ construction and moving forward with the new list, I do think as Indian Affairs moves 

forward, it will be very important for them to develop a communications strategy so that it is really apparent to all stakeholders 

what the new criteria will be as far as facilities going on the list, 

as well as helping them understand what the differences are. While 

moving forward and developing a new list is clearly important and 

a priority, it is also important that there be a clear communication 

strategy so that all affected parties really understand the difference 

between the old list and new list. Short of that, it is likely to create 

some additional questions and mistrust issues. 

I think our work and the work of its own internal study has 

found that consistently communication within the department, as 

well as communication with the stakeholders, has been a key challenge for Indian Affairs. And so I think developing some long-term 

communication strategies to help address that issue is critically important. 

Mr. COLE. Dr. Shotton. 

Ms. SHOTTON. Yes, Representative Cole. I think in answering 

this question—and Mr. Washburn alluded to this—it seems very 

simple if we can compare them to other surrounding public schools. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
51 

But it is a little more complex. I think when looking at BIE students and their parity in terms of being funded the same as surrounding schools, you have to consider the cost of running boarding 

schools within this. And so sometimes the comparisons should be 

more to the cost of a private boarding school rather than surrounding public schools. So I think those are important considerations to note when you are comparing the cost per student in BIE 

schools. 

CAPITAL VS. OPERATING BUDGETS

Mr. COLE. Please. 

Ms. SHOTTON. No, go ahead. 

Mr. COLE. Well, I was going to say another thing that strikes me 

in terms of the difference here—and I have a lot of areas to cover 

so excuse me for rushing through this. You really have two budgets, and when you look at any school system, you have an operational budget and you have a capital budget. And you clearly have 

a huge problem in Indian Country because we do not work capital 

budgets the same way. They cannot vote bond issues, they cannot 

tax themselves. Tribes that have a source of revenue cannot invest 

extra revenue on top. Our tribe does that in a variety of areas. 

Tribes that are not as fortunate obviously would probably want to 

do it and cannot and do not have any means. So I would ask when 

you look at your statistics if you could give us some idea of capital 

resources versus operating budget as well. 

It seems to me that facilities are the main problem that we have. 

I agree very much. I want perhaps all of you to address this quickly. I believe very much, Mr. Secretary, in what you had to say 

about self-governance. I mean my experience in healthcare and 

other areas has been when tribes actually have the authority that 

they do a better job. And if they do not do a very good job, well, 

guess what? Their local tribal members know who the councilmen 

are and they get their fingers right around their throat and the job 

gets better, just like it does in government anyplace else. 

But if the people making the decisions are a thousand miles 

away and appointed and you have no means of knowing who they 

are or dealing with them, it is just very difficult to make them responsive to you. So I mean pushing the decision-making down to 

the tribal level I think is by and large a good thing. If it does not 

work right the first time, over time it will because it has a means 

of self-correcting. 

Yet, at the same time, Mr. Scott, you seem to suggest—and I am 

sure you are right, particularly when you look at things like capital—these decisions are made a long way away. They do not decide 

in a local school district, you know, on the Navajo Nation we are 

going to have a bond issue and we are going to do something and 

we are going to upgrade the school. Somebody a long way away is 

going to make the decision. 

So how do you achieve the self-governance that I think you rightly are searching for, Mr. Secretary, and at the same time make 

these larger bureaucracies responsible? Because I am not sure centralizing the decision-making is all that good. Actually, that is kind 

of the history of decisions being made in Washington, D.C., and not 

being made by tribal people with tribal interests and knowledge 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
52 

immediately available. I do not know what kind of structural mechanism you devise to reconcile those things. 

Mr. WASHBURN. I think we have been moving towards—after our 

Bronner report which looked at these issues, we have been moving 

towards a system that puts the decisions out in the regions as far 

as we can, as best we can. It centralizes the accountability. And in 

fact here in Washington, I am accountable to you. That is why I 

am sitting in this chair. And I am accountable to Mr. Scott, who 

is looking at our programs. And so our accountability resides in 

Washington to a great degree. So we have got that function. We are 

putting our audit functions and our accountability functions. We 

have centralized those, but we are trying to push the decision-making out closest to the tribes and the schools as we can. And that 

has been one of the ways we have tried to restructure things to 

work better. 

Mr. SCOTT. I certainly want to commend Indian Affairs for commissioning the Bronner study, but I also want to make sure that 

they take away the right lessons from the study. Because previously, there was a NAPA study that basically said to centralize 

some things even though I am not sure the NAPA study said to 

centralize everything. And so now you have the Bronner saying 

some sort of hybrid approach is really the way to go. And so, I am 

certainly going to defer to Mr. Washburn in terms of the ultimate 

decisions they want to make about this. 

I do think it is critically important that as you transition to 

whatever new structure you have, that you build in certain things 

to ensure that you can measure whether you are making adequate 

progress in terms of having a focus on the customer, ensuring you 

have the right performance metrics in place so that you know 

whether you are meeting the customer’s needs in a timely manner 

and that you have assurance that you have the right people with 

the right skills and abilities to properly execute your new mission. 

Absent that, reorganizing the administrative structure alone is not 

going to be sufficient to address some of these long-standing problems. 

BIE SCHOOL GOVERNANCE

Mr. COLE. Can I ask you a very simple and basic question? On 

most BIA schools, you mentioned there is a lot of tribal control. 

What is the mechanism for government? What is the equivalent of 

the local school board for a BIE school? 

Mr. WASHBURN. Well, we have tribal school boards. This has 

been a source of a little bit of tension, too, because we have got 

independent school boards for schools that compete for power a little bit with the tribal government itself. And so this is interesting. 

We have replicated a great deal of what we have in the counties 

and the cities at the tribal level. And that is a good thing in general. 

When we do tribal consultation, we often go to tribal leaders. 

And frankly, in this area, that is not entirely adequate because 

tribal school boards are in control to a great degree. But we have 

kind of replicated all the complications that exist in the rest of the 

world in this area. So the mechanism is tribal school boards for a 

lot of these schools. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
53 

Mr. COLE. Dr. Shotton, you obviously have spent a lot of time 

thinking about this and studying it. What would you see as the 

best form of governance? Recognizing we have boarding schools and 

differences, and there might be a variety of them, but if you were 

sort of getting—how would you empower a local school district or 

a tribe to actually go about the business of educating native kids 

within the BIE system? 

Ms. SHOTTON. Well, I think that we always need to advocate for 

tribal control of education. I think we are certainly on the same 

page there that when we empower our tribes to employ their selfdetermination and take control of the education of their own citizens, of their own tribal members, tribes know how to educate their 

students. However, we must also equip them to do that. We cannot 

continually underfund these schools and expect our tribes to be 

able to run them efficiently. 

I think when we talk about consultations and advisory committees and those kinds of things, we must include the voice of our 

tribal leaders. We must also include the voice of our national native education leaders on these issues. So I think that it requires 

a continued cooperation and reaching out and consultation with our 

tribes to inform what is happening within the BIA and the BIE. 

And I think that we would be interested to know if there is a 

current plan for restructuring and if there is a plan to release, how 

we would do that? And if there is, if there is a time frame for that. 

DOD SCHOOLS

Mr. COLE. I am going to conclude pretty quickly. You have been 

very generous, Chairman. And I know other people have questions. 

DOD, just a little bit of background history, part of that happened because our former colleague, Norm Dicks, was traveling 

and he has military schools and he heard complaints. I have military schools and I heard complaints, and I visited a couple of them 

and the complaints were very well-founded. And brilliant staff 

came up with the idea to do one big effective deal; fix all these 

schools at once. And then in that case we were going to turn them 

over, after we get them up to standards, to the local school systems. They were a part of them anyway in many cases. But we 

made a big capital investment. It was a very big bipartisan effort 

because I think everybody wants the children of American service 

people to have the very best education possible. 

I do not know in this budget environment if we could ever do 

something like that, but that model is what worked. And it strikes 

me that what the chairman says is absolutely true. We do have a 

special responsibility. We have a trust responsibility that our government has assumed over many years. 

I recognize all the problems that Assistant Secretary Washburn 

has to wrestle with because a lot of these kids are coming from awfully challenged environments in terms of poverty, distance and 

isolation. It is pretty tough. On the other hand, they ought to go 

to a good school. And as the chairman said, they ought to be able 

to walk in and know somebody someplace cares about me and the 

kind of education I am going to get and wants me to have the best 

opportunity to do whatever I can do and go as far as my skills can 

take me. And that probably relies more on us in these cases, as 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
54 

they do with DOD kids, than any others in the country. There is 

somebody else to do that in most states. There is not anybody else 

but the Federal Government in this case. So I would hope we look 

to something like this. 

Last point, probably should not say it, you guys have pretty good 

ties. You have a spectacular necklace. That is a wonderful piece of 

work. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Ms. Pingree. 

Ms. PINGREE. Thank you very much for the fashion commentary. 

No end to what I am going to learn on this committee. 

So thank you, Mr. Chair, for holding the hearing. I am very excited to be one of the newer members of this committee and really 

appreciate those members who have been working on this issue for 

a long time. What a depth of knowledge you have. You are asking 

some obviously very deeply concerning questions. 

I feel like I am learning a lot today and I am here to learn a lot 

today. So I am focusing most of my efforts on seeing how much I 

can absorb. 

But I do have a couple of specific questions, mostly for you, Mr. 

Secretary. 

I am lucky enough to represent Maine. We have two Members 

of Congress. And we have four tribes in Maine, the Penobscot, the 

Passamaquoddy, the Maliseet, and the Micmac. And because most 

of them are not in my district, I have had very little experience 

with some of the challenges that they have. But of course, now that 

I have this great opportunity to serve on this committee and learn 

more, I have been digging in. And I am pleased to hear that you 

have been to visit Maine. 

BEATRICE RAFFERTY SCHOOL

I want to ask specifically about one of our schools. You mentioned the 2004 list, and that of the 14, 11 had been done and three 

are left. And one is the Beatrice Rafferty School, which is in Perry, 

Maine, a Passamaquoddy school. They were one of those priority 

question projects. So when we contacted them to say give us some 

more background about what is going on there, it was a little 

shocking to me to realize that they had been on the list for so long, 

that they were only in the planning stages, and had not even received any funding for design let alone construction. 

And in the time that they have been waiting, in the time that 

they have been one of these schools that was slated for replacement, they have needed extensive repairs just to keep the building 

usable for those students. That means hundreds of thousands of 

dollars have been spent on replacing walls that fell down, replacing 

a portion of the roof, and conducting ongoing mold inspections, not 

to see if there was mold in the building, but to see if the mold in 

the building was one of the toxic molds that would affect the students. 

So it is hard to hear that in the context of this notion that we 

want kids to feel valued when they go to school and we want them 

to be able to learn. And for the 120 students there is just clearly 

not a good environment. And they had the sense in their conversation with me that they are pretty much never going to hear from 

us again, that the school is going to continue to fall down around 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
55 

them, that they are going to come up with what little they can to 

just keep it going, but they are asking. So what is going to happen 

here? Will there ever be any money for designer funding? 

And I heard you say this morning that you suggested that the 

three schools that had not been completed from that list, even 

though the criteria may be changing, but those three schools will 

be attended to. But I would like to be able to say at least to them 

whether is there any possibility that this school is going to be replaced. When will they hear from someone again? What is going to 

happen? 

And I am sorry, too, in a room full of people and stories all over 

that are clear that there are schools in need of help and repair. I 

did not want to single out just my own school for concern, but it 

is a great opportunity for me to learn and to be able to at least say, 

okay, so I am trying to learn. What is going to happen here? And 

I appreciated that you brought this problem up and I would love 

to hear your thoughts about it. 

Mr. WASHBURN. Thank you, Congresswoman. What I am going to 

do is take back your concerns to the Secretary and the OMB and 

let them know I got an earful yesterday from Ms. Pingree, and we 

have got some friends from the—— 

Ms. PINGREE. It is those M states. 

Mr. WASHBURN. Yeah, that is right. I think the people in the 

back of the room from the BUGS school would say that they are 

similarly in dire circumstances. And it is not something I relish but 

I would like to see what the next list holds as far as what other 

schools. 

I would hope that you would not judge us on our worst schools, 

but we have got to solve those problems. The problems are very 

real at the worst schools, the schools with the greatest challenges. 

And I will take this back and again the conversation has been we 

are not taking care of the buildings we have well enough, so, we 

do not want to build new buildings. I know that that does not answer all the questions, especially around the schools that are in the 

absolute worst condition. So I will take that back and register your 

concerns about this. 

Ms. PINGREE. Great. Well, I will certainly look forward to having 

a further conversation about this. 

BIE SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION

Ms. MCCOLLUM. If you are taking money for repair and you are 

on a list, either the three-school list or the new list, and you start 

doing repair work, sometimes there is concern that that is going to 

move you down the list. 

Ms. PINGREE. Right. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. And I know that that is a concern for people out 

in public schools when they start repairing it that they will not get 

something done. Is that going to have a negative impact? Is that 

something that they should be concerned about? 

Mr. WASHBURN. Well, I guess when I hear that, what I hear is 

people are trying to game the system. I mean if you have got a repair that needs to be done, you should take the money and get the 

repair done. The new criteria that are in that book, maybe because 

the quality of the building is taken into account, and that is one 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
56 

of the criteria. You should not decline the repair money and put 

students in jeopardy because you are trying to make the worst case 

for the need. 

So even though it might have a tiny effect on the number of 

points that get scored for the building, that would be my thoughts 

about that. 

Ms. PINGREE. Yes, thank you, Congresswoman. 

In our consultations, and our conversations with our partners, 

they highlighted conversations that expressed the same concerns 

that if they began to fund individual maintenance projects, rather 

than replacing the much-needed replacement of the facilities, that 

it could potentially push their facility further down the list. And so 

there is some fear about only kind of having this piecemeal approach to address small projects rather than the full spectrum of 

what their issues are. And so I think that is a very valid concern 

from what we have heard in conversations with constituents. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you, Ms. Pingree. 

Ms. SHOTTON. Well, thank you. I appreciate the additional question. And I guess in our further concentration, I mean that is an 

important question for this school. If nothing else, I think at some 

point they want to know—so we were on the list, we are one of 

those three, you know, are we never going to hear again? Do we 

have to find alternative means? Should we keep repairing the 

building? I think all those are very valid questions, and my guess 

is that if this is happening in one of our tiny little schools, it is everywhere else. 

So thank you for your consideration. 

Mr. WASHBURN. Ms. Pingree, that is certainly consistent with 

what we have heard in our work, particularly this issue if you go 

ahead and make some repairs to your school, does that affect your 

place on the list? And I would just encourage the folks in Indian 

Affairs to communicate with schools about that—— 

Mr. SIMPSON. Yeah. 

Mr. WASHBURN [continuing]. In terms of sort of what is their 

long-term strategy here so that everyone is operating from the 

same set of assumptions about what this will mean in the longterm. I think at a minimum we owe that communication to the 

folks at the local level so that they really understand long-term 

what this process looks like and to what extent, if at all, making 

some interim repairs to your building will affect your long-term 

capital needs. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Appreciate that. The gentlelady may be interested 

to know that the money we put in, since it was the next list on the 

school, the school you mentioned was the next school on the list, 

it would have been for that school, which ultimately got dropped 

in negotiations with the Senate when we could not get them to go 

along with that. 

Mr. Joyce. 

GUNS IN INDIAN SCHOOLS

Mr. JOYCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I appreciate you being here, Dr. Shotton and Director Black 

and Assistant Secretary Washburn, and your testimony here today 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
57 

in answering questions. I have a direct question for you, Assistant 

Secretary Washburn. 

And let me preface it by saying for the last 25 years I have been 

a prosecuting attorney who represented school districts, and I have 

the misfortune of a year ago today being in one of my high schools 

which is a crime scene in which six kids were shot. 

In looking at the Inspector General’s report in preparing for today’s hearing, I noticed that 6 percent of high school students and 

37 percent of middle school students are bringing guns to schools. 

And I applaud the efforts taking place up there with the drug 

abuse resistance and anti-bullying programs and also doing things 

as far as anger management training. But I was wondering if you 

could update us on whether or not there has been a reduction in 

the number of guns being brought to school? Because I think it is 

important that kids are given the best education that is humanly 

possible in the safest environment humanly possible. 

Mr. WASHBURN. Congressman, thank you for the question. And 

I do not have the data for how many kids are bringing guns to Indian schools. I will tell you we have taken some steps. All the 

schools have continuity of operations plans if God forbid, the worst 

happens that there is a school shooter situation or any other emergency for that matter. That is one that has been heavy on our 

hearts lately. 

We have been doing other things that do not cost too much but 

help out a lot, so parking police squad cars in front of the school, 

it does not mean a police officer is there necessarily but it provides 

a visible deterrent so that people think that there is an officer 

there and they see the squad car, and that can sometimes be effective. And it does not cost as much because that car would be sitting 

in a parking lot somewhere if it was not parked at the school. That 

cannot be the entire strategy to prevent school shootings obviously, 

but we are trying to do the things that do not cost much and that 

might have an effect. And so we are looking to be very creative 

about finding ways to address these serious issues. 

Mr. JOYCE. Thank you. No further questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Let me ask kind of a—well, a question I guess is 

what it is. As Congress is demonstrating this week that if we enact 

a law, it is difficult to change that law. The same is generally true 

for appropriations laws even though new bills are written each 

year annually. Things get into appropriation bills and then stay 

there forever and ever and ever, and a lot of times we do not know 

why they went in originally. 

EXPANSION OF GRADES AT EXISTING SCHOOLS

A tribe recently brought to my attention the real-life impacts of 

language this subcommittee has carried since fiscal year 1995 prohibiting the expansion of grades at existing schools. The language 

forces this particular tribe to bus its sixth-grade students off reservation to the nearest public school for a year before returning 

them to the school to the reservation for seventh through 12th 

grade. Does this make sense? 

Mr. WASHBURN. I have an answer. No. 

Mr. SIMPSON. What are the consequences of deleting the language that prevents the expansion of grades in existing schools? 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
58 

This is an example where clearly it does not make any sense to 

have that. Are there other consequences that we do not know 

about? 

Mr. WASHBURN. Well, my sense is—and this language has been 

in there a long time, more than—— 

Mr. SIMPSON. 1995. 

Mr. WASHBURN. Yes, I mean probably the reason that was put 

in there was we do not want schools expanding the grades that 

they are offering. If we cannot keep—— 

Mr. SIMPSON. We cannot afford it. 

Mr. WASHBURN. Cannot afford it and cannot keep the building in 

shape. I mean the next thing they will want is a new building for 

the additional grades that they have. And so that might have been 

a way to put the cap on Indian education a little bit so that we are 

not expanding at a time when we cannot afford to build new buildings. I am just guessing that that must have been the purpose of 

that. In that case, at Sho-Ban, it is kind of a silly outcome honestly. 

I will take that back to OMB and the Secretary and talk about 

that with them about whether that might be appropriate to delete 

that one. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Get us an answer to that by the time we write our 

bill because we will either delete the language or probably give the 

Department the ability to waiver that language at their discretion. 

But it is a discussion we need to have because it is really one of 

those simple things that needs to get done. 

LEGISLATIVE LANGUAGE PROPOSALS

Mr. Cole. 

Mr. COLE. Just a couple more questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And along the lines that you just covered, it would be very 

helpful if any of you would give us specific proposals about language that could go in the bill that would be helpful. You know, 

again, we have some ideas. I am particularly interested in bolstering self-governance and I am particularly interested in things 

that would give local schools some understanding or control over 

their capital budget, which I think they really probably do not have 

now given the way we fund Indian education. And I am not sure 

what that would be but your suggestions would be certainly something I would look at with a great deal of interest. 

Also, I would ask that as you go forward you think about whether or not, again, a large-scale capital program—and that is probably something that would not be done this year—but, what is the 

utility of this as opposed to this sort of piecemeal approach? I just 

think we are at the bottom of a cliff we are never going to get to 

the top of. We have to make something to sort of get there. Now, 

as I recall, the Bush Administration tried to do something like that 

early on. I think the President actually, when he was a candidate, 

met with tribal leaders back in 2000 or something and made some 

commitment. And I know there was a rather substantial investment in 2001 or 2002 or sometime in that area. 

It sounds to me like it either was not enough or we just did not 

get the job done or again we maybe did not have the sustained 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
59 

maintenance after that. So looking back on the history of that 

might be somewhat helpful as well. 

COOPERATION BETWEEN BIE SCHOOLS AND TCUS

And a final point again, and Dr. Shotton, you touched on this 

and might want to elaborate a little bit, I am very interested in 

whether and where cooperation between tribal colleges and tribally 

operated schools within the BIE system—what kind of relationship 

can we have? And are there some outstanding examples? 

And one last question—and you may want to address this, too, 

Assistant Secretary Washburn—are there any tribes that we 

should look at that are just models? I mean you say, wow, this is 

a tribal school that is really being run really well by the tribe. I 

think the Cherokees Sequoyah School is an awfully good school. 

And that was not the history of that. And they have gotten deeply 

involved in investments and what have you. I have been to the facility before. It is extremely impressive. And they have clearly 

made this a point of pride and a point of success for their young 

people. So are there other places we should go look and models that 

we might be able to replicate or encourage? 

Ms. SHOTTON. I think of that when we talk about cooperation between BIE schools and our TCUs. I think a great opportunity is 

with regard to professional development. Turning to our TCUs to 

help provide the professional development that our teachers need 

in our BIE schools is a prime opportunity. They understand the 

cultural needs of our students. They understand the perspectives. 

They understand the things that we need for tribal students. And 

I think that we turn to TCUs as ways to educate our future leaders. And that was kind of the prime reason for starting TCUs, to 

allow tribes to create the future leaders. And so I think that that 

is a great example to work more cooperatively and collaboratively 

with TCUs to help provide that much-needed professional development for our teachers and BIE schools. 

Mr. WASHBURN. Thank you, Congressman. I guess on the model 

question, I am sure that there are wonderful stories out there. One 

that comes to mind is the Southern Ute Tribe in southwestern Colorado. They started basically a Montessori program years ago. 

They were troubled because their children knew who George Washington was but they did not know who the president of the tribe 

was and that sort of thing. And they thought we need to do a better job of educating students about our own government and our 

own culture and our own languages. And so that is a really neat 

example. It also combined early childhood education, which we 

know is exceedingly effective very much worthwhile expenditures 

because it makes long-term improvements in people’s lives. 

The capital budget question that you mentioned we have put 

about $2 billion into Indian schools in the last 10 years or so and 

going back into the Bush Administration. The report that we have 

recently released shows that the community asserted that we needed $1.3 billion more. But that is less than what we have put in. 

There has been a sustained commitment. It has not been a single 

infusion in a couple of years. It has been over the course of time. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
60 

But the ARRA funding also, you all spent a lot of money on Indian schools with the ARRA funding, too, and that was not a complete capital infusion, but it was a significant one. 

JOINT VENTURES

Mr. COLE. And one last question. And this is just an idea and 

I do not know if you have any reaction to it or maybe we already 

did this. One of the most successful programs we have in 

healthcare—and this does not always help your tribes—is joint venturing where we literally get tribes and the feds operating together. 

We have seen it obviously with the Chickasaws and their 

healthcare program where a lot of the capital was done. They had 

the ability to do that but then a lot of the operational was picked 

up. Do we have any equivalent to that in BIE program? And would 

there be any merit in that approach? 

Mr. WASHBURN. Let me say I do not know the complete answer 

to that question but I saw some really neat joint venturing recently 

with a state public school system and a tribe. The Kalispell tribe 

in Eastern Washington—they are a small tribe, 380 members or 

something like that—their kids go to the local state public school. 

They thought about having their own school but they have only got 

380 members. It would not be a very big school and the school is 

really close. They were very comfortable with the school they went 

to, but they wanted more tribal cultural education and tribal language education. 

So what they do is their kids go to the public school. The tribe 

provides the cultural and language teachers and the students that 

want to go—and mostly it is the Indian kids, but it is not just the 

Indian kids—can take those electives and go to those classes. And 

that is kind of a neat example. Obviously when, you know, governments can work together, it is a beautiful thing. And that seems 

to be a really successful example. 

Mr. COLE. Thank you. 

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Ms. McCollum. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I saw a couple of Head 

Start facilities where tribes that, as Mr. Cole pointed out, had resources available upgraded and were doing some fabulous things 

with their Head Start facilities. But you know, then there is more 

inequity possibly for students who, through no fault of their own, 

have a tribe that does not have gaming usually as a resource. 

One of the things that we run across, whether it’s reference to 

sovereignty in statutes, whether it is labor law or something like 

that, they might list states, municipalities, but then they do not list 

tribal nations. And so it is whether it was unintended or done deliberate. I was not in the room when some of these statutes were 

written. So there is inequity that is out there. 

FEDERAL COLLABORATION

There is also an inequity out there when the Department of the 

Interior—and I think it is a good thing that HUD and some of the 

other agencies are reaching out and working in Indian Country, 

still too centralized in my opinion and not enough consultation 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
61 

quite often. But here we are charged with the overall working cooperatively in a partnership with our tribal nations here. 

But there are so many other agencies out there and we are just 

talking about education, for example. We have got the Department 

of Education. I recently found out the Department of Agriculture 

in one of its programs and one of its lines down below with rural 

schools can fund programs in Indian Country. So for us as appropriators to kind of have a handle on it to know what is really going 

on, for a tribal organization to know what is going on, and then all 

the grants that keep getting added that are in different spots, and 

then you need to be a grant writer is what is happening. One of 

the things that we have been working on here and that I have been 

requesting for a while, and finally, from OMB is a unified budget. 

But I noticed even in the report from GAO, and it is no fault of 

your own, but you just kind of talked about this silo of dollars. 

What do we need to do, to do the right thing in managing the federal dollars and working in partnership with tribal leaders? 

And let’s just take education. I mean healthcare is another example where things are all over. Is that something that people have 

been struggling with or thinking about? I mean because I feel like 

now in order for us to do a good job with putting more money into 

schools, we need to watch that line in the Ag bill to make sure that 

they do not zero that out or lose it or we might lose broadband or 

internet or something like that. What are some of your struggles 

with that? How could we do a better job together in these dollars 

that have been allocated? 

Mr. WASHBURN. Let me say a little bit about that. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. I mean we are all struggling with this together. 

Mr. WASHBURN. Sure. Sure. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. This is no one’s fault. We are all struggling with 

it together. 

Mr. WASHBURN. We have got sort of a great example that happened in the last decade or so. The Department of Justice went out 

and built a whole lot of correctional facilities in Indian Country, 

and they are beautiful, some of them. And then they turned to the 

BIA and said staff them up. And we did not have it in our budget. 

We did not know it was coming. That was not any communication 

between DOJ and BIA. And so it is a neat thing that they were 

engaged in Indian Country but we were not coordinating very well. 

And so we are doing a lot better at doing that. 

One of the great successes of this Administration has been the 

Tribal Nations Conference because once a year, every December, all 

of the Secretaries get together and a lot of their staff and tell Indian Country what we have been doing. And it forces us to talk to 

one another, too. And OMB has been interested in these. How can 

we make sure that you are coordinating across Departments? 

And so it is a difficult task because there are so many different 

units. But we are convinced that we need to be working better at 

those things. And so we are working on that. 

I have heard complaints from several people. Tribes do not want 

to have to choose which Cabinet-level agency they are going to go 

to. Whatever they need, they need it. Having to go search and find 

the right agency to fund that is not ideal. It would be nice if there 

was one United States interface and this is what we need; help us 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
62 

find it. And there is not a help desk at the front of the Federal 

Government that says oh for that you need to go to this Department. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Let me ask. Do you have an employee that is employed by the BIE that has an office over in the Department of 

Education or one that has an office over in the Department of Justice? 

Mr. WASHBURN. No, not inside those offices. We meet with them 

fairly often. Around education there is the White House Initiative 

on Indian Education. And that has served as an umbrella organization that has really kind of helped bring a lot of people together 

around these issues. But no, we do not actually have physical presence within those buildings. We try to meet with them regularly. 

Mr. SIMPSON. The problem is a lot of things go on in the Department of Education, and wouldn’t it be nice to have someone there 

that you could say, well, this is what is happening in Indian Country and this is why this might work or might not work or whatever, 

but be part of a discussion on an everyday basis of what the heck 

is going on. And the same is true with the Department of Justice 

and other areas. 

Mr. WASHBURN. No, it is true. Energy is an area where the Energy Department actually has a lot of things going on, and so what 

we have been endeavoring to do is try to meet very often with them 

to know what are they funding, feasibility studies, so that we know 

that we need to fund the permitting processes once the feasibility 

study is done and that sort of thing. So again, enormous coordination problems because we have a lot of resources in the Federal 

Government but they are highly spread out. 

Mr. SCOTT. Ms. McCollum, I think the example you cited presents both the challenges and opportunities. Clearly, with different 

agencies doing different things, there is the potential to be fragmentation and duplication of efforts. That said, though, there is 

also an opportunity to enhance collaboration across these agencies. 

I spoke earlier about this idea of transforming the vision for Indian 

education in the country. And I think having increased collaboration across the various federal efforts would provide an opportunity 

to do that. Short of that, though, you do run the risk of different 

agencies doing different things and they may not be complementary at times. So I do think it is important for there to be some 

effort to look for opportunities to strengthen collaboration across 

the various agencies. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Well, Doctor, how good of a dance partner are 

we? 

Ms. SHOTTON. Fabulous. You know, that was exactly what I was 

going to say. The fragmentation in terms of funding for tribes and 

for native people, particularly around education, is an issue. I 

mean the funding is coming from so many different sources and 

you need all of those different agencies. 

I think another concern that we have from our perspective is the 

increased funding and increase and explosive growth of bureaucracy. So the funding that is going to more administrative costs is 

an issue that we are really concerned about. And so I think that 

is also something that we have to address when we are talking 

about some of these funding issues. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
63 

Mr. SIMPSON. Ms. Pingree, anything else? 

Ms. PINGREE. No, thank you. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Do you have anything else, Tom? 

Mr. COLE. No, I just thank you all. 

FEDERAL TRUST RESPONSIBILITY

Mr. SIMPSON. Well, let me just conclude. Let me ask one question. Might as well get a little provocative here. It says, Dr. 

Shotton, in your written testimony you state, ‘‘While DOD budgets 

are often easy to justify for military purposes, it is equally as important that Congress defends spending on native populations to 

fulfill its trust responsibilities.’’ In your opinion, is the problem due 

to the fact that most Members do not understand the trust responsibilities well enough to defend it or do you see another reason 

here? 

And for the record, could you explain what the trust responsibilities are pertaining to Indian education? 

Ms. SHOTTON. I think at the heart of that, Mr. Chairman, is that, 

yes, too many people do not understand the trust responsibility 

that the Federal Government has to tribes. As a college professor, 

I run into this every day. It is not something that we teach in our 

school systems. It is not something that we teach in our history 

courses. And so many of the students that I receive do not understand the role of the Federal Government and the relationship and 

the sovereignty of tribes and the role of the trust responsibility of 

the Federal Government. And these are people that are going to go 

on to be our future leaders. So absolutely, I think there is a real 

lack of understanding of the trust responsibility. 

So when we talk about explaining the trust responsibility, the 

way that I explain it to my students in very simplified terms is it 

is kind of like rent. The trust responsibility was a promise to provide education, to provide healthcare, and for the well-being of natives and native children when tribes ceded lands to the Federal 

Government and those lands that now make up the United States. 

And I think in speaking to this subcommittee, I think everyone 

here understands that. But many of our leaders do not understand 

the very basics of our trust responsibility. 

So essentially, it is that responsibility that is laid out in many 

of our treaties for the Federal Government to provide for the education, the well-being, and for healthcare of tribes for the land that 

they ceded to the United States. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Appreciate that. Go ahead. 

Mr. COLE. Just for the record and probably inappropriately, but 

the Chickasaws are more than willing to cede back every—if we 

can just have northern Mississippi and parts of Alabama back. We 

will call it even. All is forgiven. 

Mr. SIMPSON. I knew that was a bad question to ask. No, I often 

hear this. And there are excuses that are made all the time for not 

doing what is our responsibility, not fulfilling our responsibilities. 

And you hear more and more from people who say, well, but they 

got all those casinos. They do not need funding from the Federal 

Government anymore because they are making money hand-overfist, you know? And you go to some reservations and some tribes 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
64 

are doing very well with casinos, and others, it is not really a benefit. 

It is something we need to be able to explain to more Members 

of Congress so that they understand what our responsibilities are 

and how we are doing in meeting those responsibilities and what 

needs to go on to improve it. 

But I appreciate all of you being here. This is a very interesting 

subject for this subcommittee, and we will continue to work on it. 

COMMUNICATION BETWEEN BIE AND DASM

Mr. Scott, I look forward to your final report when you get it out 

because there are some things that concern me. And we talk about 

communication between federal agencies. As I was reading this last 

night, it said, ‘‘BIE officials reported having difficulty obtaining 

timely updates from DASM on its responsibilities to request for 

services from schools. According to the BIE officials, they used to 

have regularly scheduled meetings at DASM leadership to discuss 

operations, but the meetings were discontinued in September 2012. 

BIE now depends on ad hoc meetings to discuss issues requiring 

resolution. As a result, BIE officials stated there is a disjointed approach to serving schools.’’ 

So it is not just between federal agencies. It is also within the 

Department. And it is something that we want to help you work 

on because all of us in this room, every member of this committee, 

as well as you that testified, as well as guests, all have the same 

goal here, and that is to provide the best quality education that our 

Indian children deserve in this country, as well as the other responsibilities we have. So we look forward to working with you to 

address this. 

Thank you for being here today. And again, welcome to the new 

post. 

Mr. COLE. Can I have one last question? 

Mr. SIMPSON. Yes. 

Mr. COLE. Now that you have read Mr. Scott’s turnover statistics, we have your guarantee you are going to stay here a full year 

and get this job done for us? 

Mr. WASHBURN. But I heard Dr. Shotton’s testimony, and that is 

a grave responsibility. 

This committee’s leadership has been incredible, and the Administration does appreciate the incredible leadership of this committee on Indian issues. Thank you. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you all very much. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
65 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 112 81687A.032
66 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 113 81687A.033
67 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 114 81687A.034
68 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 115 81687A.035
69 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 116 81687A.036
70 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 117 81687A.037
71 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 118 81687A.038
72 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 119 81687A.039
73 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 120 81687A.040
74 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 121 81687A.041
75 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 122 81687A.042
76 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 123 81687A.043
77 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 124 81687A.044
78 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 125 81687A.045
79 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 126 81687A.046
80 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 127 81687A.047
81 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 128 81687A.048
82 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 129 81687A.049
83 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 130 81687A.050
84 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 131 81687A.051
85 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 132 81687A.052
86 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 133 81687A.053
87 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 134 81687A.054
88 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 135 81687A.055
89 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 136 81687A.056
90 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 137 81687A.057
91 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 138 81687A.058
92 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 139 81687A.059
93 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 140 81687A.060
94 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 141 81687A.061
95 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 142 81687A.062
96 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 143 81687A.063
97 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 144 81687A.064
98 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 145 81687A.065
99 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 146 81687A.066
100 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 147 81687A.067
101 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 148 81687A.068
102 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 149 81687A.069
103 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 150 81687A.070
104 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 151 81687A.071
105 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 152 81687A.072
106 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 153 81687A.073
107 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 154 81687A.074
108 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 155 81687A.075
109 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 156 81687A.076
110 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 157 81687A.077
111 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 158 81687A.078
112 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 159 81687A.079
113 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 160 81687A.080
114 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 161 81687A.081
115 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 162 81687A.082
116 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 163 81687A.083
117 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 164 81687A.084
118 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 165 81687A.085
119 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 166 81687A.086
120 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 167 81687A.087
121 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 168 81687A.088
122 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 169 81687A.089
123 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 170 81687A.090
124 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 171 81687A.091
125 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 172 81687A.092
126 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 173 81687A.093
127 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 174 81687A.094
128 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 175 81687A.095
129 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 176 81687A.096
130 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 177 81687A.097
131 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 178 81687A.098
132 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 179 81687A.099
133 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 180 81687A.100
134 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 181 81687A.101
135 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 182 81687A.102
136 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 183 81687A.103
137 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 184 81687A.104
138 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 185 81687A.105
139 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 186 81687A.106
140 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 187 81687A.107
141 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 188 81687A.108
142 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 189 81687A.109
143 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 190 81687A.110
144 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 191 81687A.111
145 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 192 81687A.112
146 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 193 81687A.113
147 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 194 81687A.114
148 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 195 81687A.115
149 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 196 81687A.116
150 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 197 81687A.117
151 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 198 81687A.118
152 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 199 81687A.119
153 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 200 81687A.120
154 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 201 81687A.121
155 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 202 81687A.122
156 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 203 81687A.123
157 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 204 81687A.124
158 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 205 81687A.125
159 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 206 81687A.126
160 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 207 81687A.127
161 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 208 81687A.128
162 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 209 81687A.129
163 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 210 81687A.130
164 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 211 81687A.131
165 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 212 81687A.132
166 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 213 81687A.133
167 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 214 81687A.134
168 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 215 81687A.135
169 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 216 81687A.136
170 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 217 81687A.137
171 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 218 81687A.138
172 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 219 81687A.139
173 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 220 81687A.140
174 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 221 81687A.141
175 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1 here 81687C.001
176 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2 here 81687C.002
177 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 3 here 81687C.003
178 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 4 here 81687C.004
179 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 5 here 81687C.005
180 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 6 here 81687C.006
181 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 7 here 81687C.007
182 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 8 here 81687C.008
183 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 9 here 81687C.009
184 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 10 here 81687C.010
185 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 11 here 81687C.011
186 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 12 here 81687C.012
187 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 13 here 81687C.013
188 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 14 here 81687C.014
189 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 15 here 81687C.015
190 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 16 here 81687C.016
191 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 17 here 81687C.017
192 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 18 here 81687C.018
193 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 19 here 81687C.019
194 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 20 here 81687C.020
195 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 21 here 81687C.021
196 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 22 here 81687C.022
197 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 28 here 81687C.028
198 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 29 here 81687C.029
199 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 30 here 81687C.030
200 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 31 here 81687C.031
201 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 32 here 81687C.032
202 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 33 here 81687C.033
203 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 41 here 81687C.041
204 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 42 here 81687C.042
205 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 43 here 81687C.043
206 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 44 here 81687C.044
207 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 45 here 81687C.045
208 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 46 here 81687C.046
209 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 47 here 81687C.047
210 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 48 here 81687C.048
211 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 49 here 81687C.049
212 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 50 here 81687C.050
213 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 51 here 81687C.051
214 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 52 here 81687C.052
215 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 53 here 81687C.053

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(217) 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 13, 2013. 

WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING OVERSIGHT 

HEARING 

WITNESSES 

MIKE SHAPIRO, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, OFFICE OF 

WATER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR 

ALFREDO GOMEZ, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, DIRECTOR OF NATURAL RESOURCES 

AUREL ARNDT, GENERAL MANAGER, LEHIGH COUNTY AUTHORITY, 

ON BEHALF OF AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOCIATION 

BEN GRUMBLES, U.S. WATER ALLIANCE, PRESIDENT 

HOWARD NEUKRUG, COMMISSIONER, PHILADELPHIA WATER DEPARTMENT, ON BEHALF OF NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CLEAN 

WATER AGENCIES 

JEFF STERBA, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN WATER, ON BEHALF OF NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF WATER COMPANIES 

THAD WILSON, M3 CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC, VICE PRESIDENT 

OPENING REMARKS OF CHAIRMAN SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Good morning, and welcome to today’s hearing on 

water infrastructure financing. We have a number of witnesses on 

two panels, so I will keep my remarks brief so that we may hear 

from everyone, and quickly move into question and answer session, 

where I expect a robust discussion. I would like to ask the members and witnesses to do the same thing. 

The intent of today’s hearing is to discuss what we on the Appropriations Committee have appropriated to date to the Clean Water 

and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds and current balances 

in State Revolving Funds, and what that means for the number of 

loans and projects funded annually. Today’s discussion is about 

how do we get from point A to point B, and then where are we 

going, and from where we are to where we need to be. 

In 2010, the Congressional Budget Office analyzed public spending on transportation and water infrastructure and found that 

state and local governments account for about 75 percent of the 

total public spending on transportation and infrastructure, and the 

federal government accounts for only about 25 percent. Since 1987, 

the first year of the Clean Water Revolving Fund, the committee 

has appropriated a total of $52.3 billion to the SRFs. This includes 

last year’s appropriation of $2.38 billion for the Clean Water and 

Drinking Water State Revolving Funds. In 2002, EPA’s GAP analysis identified a $533 billion shortfall 

between the assessed need and the level of investment over a 20- 

year period. EPA’s most recent clean water needs assessment in 

2007, and most recent drinking water needs assessment in 2008, 

identified a combined $633 billion in infrastructure needs through 

2028. And that need is only certain to grow as population pressures 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
218 

increase, as chemical and other contaminants infiltrate, and as infrastructure continues to age. 

This is a nationwide issue that creates very real local challenges. 

States and cities are reviewing their budgets and trying to find 

ways to pay for these infrastructure projects to ensure a clean and 

safe drinking water supply for their residents, while also maintaining critical services. Meanwhile, rate payers cannot afford to see 

their water bills increase when struggling to make ends meet with 

their mortgages and higher food and gas prices. 

At the federal level, if SRF funding is maintained at the fiscal 

year 2012 mark, we would not meet identified needs using federal 

funds for more than 250 years. That is 250 years. 

Mr. MORAN. Repeat that sentence once more, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SIMPSON. At the federal level, if SRF funding is maintained 

at the fiscal year 2012 mark, we would not meet the identified 

means using federal funds for more than 250 years. 

Mr. MORAN. I do not know about you, but I may not be around. 

Mr. SIMPSON. I plan on being around. I plan on seeing that happen, at the same time I see us finishing our appropriation bills by 

October 1. 

Mr. MORAN. And living on the Moon. 

Mr. SIMPSON. At the same time we have a massive federal debt 

of more than $16 trillion, which demands that we reduce federal 

spending. So we, too, face tough choices. 

Some argue that one cannot find solutions using the options currently available to us, and most agree that there is not one single 

approach that will serve as a ‘‘magic bullet’’. Therefore, we need 

some out-of-the-box thinking, and all options need to be on the 

table. 

We also need to be thinking about how to use existing funds and 

infrastructure more efficiently. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that many urban drinking water systems lose 20 percent 

of their water through pipe leakage. The American Society of Civil 

Engineers estimates the resulting loss of 7 billion gallons of drinking water per day. Further, EPA estimates that there are at least 

240,000 water main breaks each year in the United States. In the 

Washington DC area, there were 2,211 breaks last year, which was 

the lowest level in the past 6 years. So we have significant challenges to address both for capital infrastructure and for the operations and maintenance. And I reiterate that I hope that we can 

collectively bring some innovative thinking to the discussion today. 

EPA serves as the federal manager for the SRF funds. The GAO 

has analyzed various infrastructure financing options and implementation challenges from a nationwide perspective. We appreciate 

and look forward to the testimony. We then have a second panel 

of witnesses that represent national, county, and city levels that 

have been thinking about both federal and non-federal investment 

opportunities and other innovative approaches to paying for water 

infrastructure projects. We appreciate the expertise that they bring 

to bear along with their respective policy and legislative ideas for 

members of this subcommittee to consider. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Moran, do you have any opening statement? 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
219 

OPENING REMARKS OF CONGRESSMAN MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman, and I want to tell you in 

advance, I have got to go to two more hearings where I am giving 

testimony, but I want you to carry this on. This is an oversight 

hearing, and so it is preferably appropriate for only one—oh, you 

have got Mr. Serrano just in time. So Mr. Serrano will represent 

our side. 

Having said that, I do not think there really is one side or the 

other, and that is one of the reasons for this hearing. Because 

while we may differ to some extent on the way to get there, I think 

we both agree on the objective of making our water cleaner and 

safer for everyone, and making the investment that is necessary in 

the infrastructure to bring that about. 

I want to welcome Mr. Shapiro, who is head of the Office of 

Water at EPA, and Mr. Gomez from the GAO, the director of its 

Natural Resources Division, and the other panelists that will be 

joining us on the second panel. 

This subcommittee’s jurisdiction does include the federal government’s two main programs for financing drinking water and wastewater infrastructure. The Drinking Water and Clean Water State 

Revolving Funds combined totaled almost $2.5 billion in fiscal year 

2012. It was 28 percent of EPA’s total appropriation. I want to say, 

Mr. Chairman, that the Senate appropriations mark yesterday of 

these programs was very disappointing, and in my view, irresponsible. As difficult as it was to make the cuts that this subcommittee 

did, we made them in as responsible a way as possible, but the appropriations for EPA and the Interior appropriations bill itself is 

significantly above the Senate mark, and for that, I am very disappointed and I think the Senate, at least in that respect, did a 

disservice to the public in terms of water safety particularly. 

But given the fiscal environment of austerity in the Congress, it 

will be even more difficult for us in the future to adequately fund 

State Revolving Funds. This is just the first year of the implementation of the Budget Control Act. We have got another 9 years to 

go, and the sequester is not going away, nor do I think the reduced 

levels of funding will go away, and they will be reflected in the fiscal year 2014 budget. 

So that is why this hearing is ever more important, because I 

think that the fiscal cliff deal, as it was called, is also irresponsible 

on the part of the Administration to accept 82 percent of budget 

cuts that were all deficit financed, and not to resolve the sequester 

and the debt ceiling at the time. But there was a Minority that felt 

that way. But now we are dealing with the repercussions of that. 

I also think we need to address entitlement programs, because if 

we do not, there will be no money for any discretionary programs. 

But that is why this hearing is so important to not only discuss 

whether there is an adequate level of federal investment, but how 

much investment is needed in terms of public and private sector investment. EPA surveys, as you said, Mr. Chairman, indicate that 

we need about $635 billion over the next 20 years. Between the 

2009 Recovery Act and the fiscal year 2009 and 2010 Interior appropriations bills, we provided about $13 billion for State Revolving 

Funds. Now, they may have been historic levels, but they were 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
220 

grossly inadequate levels of funding, leaving a $500 billion funding 

gap that was reported by EPA back in 2000, and that EPA recognizes and that this country should recognize. 

I do support your efforts, Mr. Chairman, to look at the alternative financing, and we are going to hear about that today from 

experts who know more than we do, and we need their expertise 

and insight. But I do think that public-private partnerships, which 

have been around for years, are still underused by municipalities, 

and when they cannot turn to the State Revolving Fund anymore 

because of the reduction in federal funding, I think they are going 

to have to turn to other more innovative ways of funding needed 

infrastructure. We are going to hear why they have not done that 

today, I am sure, particularly from the second panel. 

I think the idea of a national infrastructure bank, and taxing 

bottled water—both of those ideas, I think, have some merit to 

meet the need, but the concourse is unsustainable. One of the problems is that we are spending billions on the back end to correct 

what is happening on the front end. At one point, it was thought 

if you just let all this fertilizer and stuff go into the water that dilution is the solution to pollution, people thought. Well, hardly. 

That stuff washes down the Potomac, it gets into the Chesapeake 

Bay, to use a local example, and then it puts the plant life on 

steroids and when it decomposes, sucks all the oxygen out of the 

water so nothing else can live. You have only to look at the District 

of Columbia to highlight our Nation’s water ills. I mean, that is 

where we spend most of our time, Members of Congress and the 

federal government, and yet, this highlights the problem. 

Everybody wants to have clean water. It is 75 percent of our bodies, but are we willing to pay to stop the sewer overflow after 

rainfalls from going into the Chesapeake Bay? DC’s Clean Rivers 

Project would cost $2.6 billion, and The Brookings Institution indicated that rate payers are not able or willing to pay that, and that 

is just a typical case of many urban, suburban, and rural communities. So how do you finance these needed improvements without 

having sufficient support from rate payers. In fact, there is good 

reason why they could not support the kind of increases in rates 

that would be necessary. 

Now we have this tradition of providing a quote that sometimes 

is relevant. There is a guy by the name of Fuller, Thomas Fuller. 

He was 17th century—and I am sure Tom Cole has read him extensively—but he said, ‘‘We never know the worth of water until 

the well is dry.’’ There is another one that I will offer for you all’s 

benefit, Mr. Chairman, which takes a somewhat lighter approach. 

W.C. Fields said, ‘‘You really can’t trust water because even a 

straight stick turns crooked in it.’’ So I am not sure what the relevance of that is, other than it is talking about water, but when 

the staff finds it, I have to use it. So yes, a stick turns crooked in 

water, and so W.C. Fields thought that you cannot trust it—it was 

not meant to be particularly deep. 

With that, we can get to the hearing, Mr. Chairman. Again, I appreciate you having the hearing. I am going to have to leave in a 

few minutes, but thanks a lot for having such an important hearing. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Moran. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
221 

I would like to ask that Mike Shapiro from the EPA, followed by 

Alfred Gomez from GAO, to offer their testimony, and we will expeditiously move into questions for this session. Mike. 

OPENING REMARKS OF MR. MIKE SHAPIRO

Mr. SHAPIRO. Chairman Simpson, Ranking Member Moran, and 

members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the state of the Nation’s drinking 

water and wastewater infrastructure, as well as the accomplishments of the Nation’s primary sources of low-cost infrastructure financing, the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving 

Loan Fund Programs. I have a longer statement that I have submitted for the record. I will give you a summary here. 

Clean water and safe drinking water contribute to our public 

health and to the welfare and economic well-being of our families 

and communities. We have come a long way in improving protection for public health, water quality, and the environment under 

the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act. Our Nation’s drinking water meets standards as protective as any in the 

world, and we have improved water quality and increased public 

health protection in streams, lakes, bays, and other waters nationwide. 

We have achieved this progress in large measure through our 

ability to construct and maintain a robust infrastructure for the 

provision of drinking water and collection and treatment of wastewater. Nevertheless, major challenges lie ahead. Our Nation needs 

significant water and wastewater infrastructure investment. According to the EPA surveys, America needs $300 billion in wastewater and $335 billion in drinking water infrastructure improvements over the next 20 years. These resources are needed to address challenges which include repairing and replacing aging facilities, managing increased demand from population growth, reducing 

nutrient pollution, controlling pollution from stormwater runoff, 

controlling pathogens, and dealing with the challenges of improving 

infrastructure, security, and resilience. 

Two of the Nation’s most important sources of water infrastructure financing are the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund Programs, the SRFs. These programs are lowinterest loan programs that give states flexibility in financing 

projects. The EPA provides capitalization grants to the state SRF 

programs. States contribute an additional 20 percent of what EPA 

provides, and they are required to make loans at below market 

rates. This results in a substantial interest savings for communities, typically providing the equivalent to a grant covering approximately 20 percent of the cost of the project. 

One of the most important features of the SRFs is that repayments are recycled back into the program to provide an ongoing 

funding source for additional water projects. Additionally, states 

have the ability to leverage federal grant awards through the sale 

of bonds. Twenty-eight clean water SRF programs and 22 drinking 

water SRF programs have leveraged by issuing bonds. 

The SRFs fund projects based on each state’s assessment of 

greatest need, which often includes small systems and those servVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:45 Jul 20, 2013 Jkt 081687 PO 00000 Frm 00221 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A687P2.XXX A687P2

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
222 

ing disadvantaged communities. In other words, systems that have 

few options for financing infrastructure improvements. 

In 2012, the SRF provided $7.7 billion in funding to more than 

2,600 communities across the country. Total funding contributed by 

federal appropriations and by states over the life of the two programs is closing in on $120 billion, with only $52.6 billion of these 

funds having come from federal appropriations. 

Under the drinking water SRF authorization, states were given 

the authority to use a portion of their capitalization grants for additional subsidization in the form of principal forgiveness or grants. 

Similar authority has been available under the Clean Water SRF 

program since the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, ARRA. This valuable authority has allowed states to provide critical resources to our most-needed communities that could 

not afford SRF loans, even at subsidized rates. 

Another important feature of the SRF programs is the Green 

Project Reserve, first introduced under ARRA, which helps utilities 

function in more environmentally sound ways. One of the benefits 

of the Green Project Reserve is the increase in funding and visibility for green infrastructure. Green infrastructure techniques utilize natural systems or engineered systems that mimic natural 

landscapes to capture, cleanse, and reduce discharges using plants, 

soils, and microbes. 

As Representative Moran pointed out, investment alone is not 

sufficient in managing our infrastructure. In addition, we need to 

plan those investments and operate them in ways that are sustainable, and a lot of EPA’s efforts in supporting our infrastructure 

programs over the last several years has focused on developing 

tools, techniques, and sharing best practices so that the money that 

we invest is used as wisely and sustainably as possible. 

In conclusion, the SRF programs are clearly focused on actions 

and funding to achieve compliance with environmental and public 

health standards, but are confronted with significant challenges. 

Addressing these challenges will take effort from the EPA, states, 

communities, and other partners, and will require us to use more 

innovative and sustainable tools to solve significant challenges. 

We look forward to working with members of the subcommittee, 

our federal and state colleagues, and our many partners, stakeholders, and citizens to continue progress in providing safe and 

clean water for all Americans. Thank you again for inviting me to 

testify, and I will be happy to respond to any questions. 

[The statement of Mike Shapiro follows:] 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
223 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 239 here 81687A.142
224 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 240 here 81687A.143
225 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 241 here 81687A.144
226 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 242 here 81687A.145
227 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 243 here 81687A.146
228 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 244 here 81687A.147
229 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 245 here 81687A.148
230 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 246 here 81687A.149
231 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 247 here 81687A.150
232 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 248 here 81687A.151
233 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, Mike. Alfredo. 

OPENING REMARKS OF MR. ALFREDO GOMEZ

Mr. GOMEZ. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Moran, and members of the subcommittee, good morning. I am pleased to be here 

today to discuss the infrastructure needs facing the Nation’s drinking and wastewater systems. 

The U.S. faces costly upgrades to aging water infrastructure. The 

most visible signs of this problem are frequent sewer overflows into 

rivers and streams, and as noted earlier, water main breaks in the 

Nation’s largest cities. Several approaches have been proposed to 

help bridge the gap between projected infrastructure needs and 

current funding. My statement today summarizes the results of our 

reports on these approaches. I will focus on three main areas: 

EPA’s Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Programs—the SRF programs, stakeholder views on three alternative 

financing approaches, and three, issues in financing drinking water 

and wastewater infrastructure. 

First, EPA’s SRF programs are the largest sources of financing. 

EPA uses federal appropriations to provide grants to states, which 

in turn provide low or no interest loans to local communities or 

utilities to pay for water infrastructure. 

Second, to better understand the three alternative approaches, 

we surveyed industry and government stakeholders. So the first 

approach is a clean water trust fund, which would provide a dedicated source of funding for wastewater projects. Stakeholders identified key issues that would need to be addressed, such as how a 

trust fund would be administered and used, what type of financial 

assistance should be provided, and what activities should be eligible to receive funding. A majority of stakeholders said that a trust 

fund should be administered through EPA in partnership with the 

states, but they differed on how a trust fund should be used. 

Another approach mentioned earlier, a national infrastructure 

bank, would use public and/or private funds to finance infrastructure projects through a variety of loans, loan guarantees, and other 

mechanisms. A majority of stakeholders that we interviewed supporting creating such a bank, but also identified several issues that 

should be considered. These are the bank’s mission and administrative structure, its financing authorities, and project eligibility. 

The last approach is public-private partnerships that involve private investment and infrastructure projects. We identified seven 

municipalities that had entered into these partnerships for wastewater projects. For example, the city of Santa Paula, California, entered into a contract with a private company to design, build, finance, and operate a wastewater treatment facility. Stakeholders 

identified advantages for all of the partnerships that we reviewed, 

such as having access to other sources of financing. They also identified challenges, such as dealing with local opposition that may 

arise from concerns about private companies not being as responsive. 

A third area that we focused on deals with efficiently financing 

water infrastructure. So as the Nation faces limited budgets, it is 

important to target federal funds to communities with the greatest 

need, such as those that are economically disadvantaged. EPA’s IG 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
234 

and GAO found that EPA has limited information about how states 

target these communities for funding. A recent report on rural 

water infrastructure found inefficiencies when state-level programs 

did not cooperate in funding projects. Officials from two USDA 

state offices had to deobligate more than $20 million that they had 

committed to projects because they were not aware that the state 

SRF programs had committed to fully fund the same projects. 

Also, our past work highlights the importance of asset management tools to help utilities manage existing and future assets more 

efficiently and effectively. EPA has implemented our recommendations to improve its promotion of asset management to utilities; 

however, it is up to utilities to use these tools and we have not assessed the extent to which they now do. 

In summary, the funding needs for upgrading the Nation’s water 

infrastructure require attention. In considering the various funding 

approaches, it is helpful to consider how an entity will be administered and funded, how we will finance projects, and what projects 

will be eligible. It would also be important to consider how to target funds to those with the greatest needs and to spend funds efficiently. 

Mr. Chairman, this completes my statement. I would be pleased 

to respond to any questions. 

[The statement of Alfredo Gomez follows:] 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
235 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 253 here 81687A.152
236 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 254 here 81687A.153
237 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 255 here 81687A.154
238 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 256 here 81687A.155
239 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 257 here 81687A.156
240 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 258 here 81687A.157
241 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 259 here 81687A.158
242 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 260 here 81687A.159
243 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 261 here 81687A.160
244 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 262 here 81687A.161
245 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 263 here 81687A.162
246 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 264 here 81687A.163
247 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 265 here 81687A.164
248 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 266 here 81687A.165
249 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 267 here 81687A.166
250 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 268 here 81687A.167
251 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 269 here 81687A.168
252 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 270 here 81687A.169
253 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 271 here 81687A.170
254 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 272 here 81687A.171
255 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 273 here 81687A.172
256 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 274 here 81687A.173
257 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 275 here 81687A.174
258 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 276 here 81687A.175
259 

CLEAN WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING BACKLOG

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, both of you, for your testimony. 

This is a really perplexing problem that we face. In fact, I think 

it is one of the great challenges that we face, not only water infrastructure systems, but infrastructure in general, and a lot of these 

systems are meeting their lifespan. 

The concern I have is two-fold. One is being able to address this 

overwhelming need when you look at, what did you say, $635 billion in clean water and safe drinking water needs assessment out 

there, and the fact, as I said in my opening statement, we are putting $2 to $3 billion in there every year, and we can address this 

in about 250 years. And if nothing gets worse over 250 years, then 

we will have fixed it in 250 years. I do not think anybody thinks 

that is realistic. 

So on the one hand, what we are appropriating is not meeting 

the needs to address the backlog and keep up with this infrastructure. Secondly, in an environment of reduced budgets, there is 

more and more pressure being placed on every aspect of our budget. We are financing now with appropriated dollars going into the 

revolving loan funds. It puts pressure on all the rest of the budget. 

So we do not do an adequate job there, and we do not do an adequate job of addressing the problem. 

And what I have been frustrated with over the years is how do 

we get out of that? You mentioned several different types of alternative financing, whether it is the trust fund such as, I suspect, the 

highway system uses, or a national infrastructure bank, which was 

discussed for a number of years when Chairman Oberstar was 

chairman of the Transportation Committee, or the public-private 

partnership arrangements. But certainly, Congress needs to take 

up some way to create a way of financing these systems for the future. I do not have the answer for it, obviously. 

I think Earl Blumenauer and I introduced a bill a couple of years 

ago that essentially created a trust fund. The question is, what do 

you tax? With the highway trust fund, we can tax gasoline or something that is pretty easy to do. Trying to address it by creating a 

tax on clean water is a little more difficult. So we looked at the industries that benefit the most by having clean water, things like 

that, and having some tax revenue from them going into a trust 

fund. But it is one of the challenges that I think Congress faces in 

general. 

You mentioned that we have spent, since the life of the program, 

$120 billion, us and local units of government, all together. 

Mr. SHAPIRO. That was the total outlay. The $120 billion is total 

outlays from the State Revolving Fund Programs, so that includes 

the federal capitalization money, the 20 percent state match, any 

of the funds that are recycled into the system through repayments, 

as well as, in some cases, some interest that accrues as states manage the resources in their funds. So it really emphasizes the power 

of leveraging the dollar through the recycling of those dollars back 

into the funds as loans are paid off. 

In addition, though, you very correctly point out that in many 

cases, especially in larger projects, there are other sources of fundVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:45 Jul 20, 2013 Jkt 081687 PO 00000 Frm 00259 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A687P2.XXX A687P2

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
260 

ing that support infrastructure, municipal bonds being a principal 

resource, and that would be in addition to the $120 billion. 

Mr. SIMPSON. As I read the history of all of this, when they created the State Revolving Loan Funds, I get the impression that the 

idea was at the time that we would put these resources into it as 

kind of seed money to start these revolving loan funds, and that 

you would build up enough in these revolving loan funds that eventually the federal government would not be putting any more 

money into them, that they would be self-sustaining with the revenue coming back in to fund other projects and so forth. Was that 

the idea behind the revolving loan funds, and if so, how much is 

the federal government going to put into it? 

Mr. SHAPIRO. Well, I think conceptually, and I was not around 

when these provisions—— 

Mr. SIMPSON. That is why I said reading the history of it. 

Mr. SHAPIRO. But I think the idea was that they would, over 

time as the funds build up, you would decrease perhaps the relative need for federal dollars. I do not know whether the thought 

was ever that they would come to absolute zero. I think there are 

a couple of, you know, issues that we have to address first as deciding ultimately what the right level would be for revolving funds, 

and then even in the situation where we reach that level, there are 

certain uses of the funds that would deplete the base over time. If 

states want to continue to provide low-interest loans, which is the 

key, there is going to be some erosion. Set-asides for grant or loan 

forgiveness, which is very important to many of the poorer income 

communities, would reduce the size of the funds in the systems. 

So if we are talking about achieving some stable level of funding 

over time, there will always be some erosion that one would have 

to attend to, but again, there is a significant public policy question 

over what level is the right level. 

And just to sort of clarify one point you made, although it is easy 

to compare the $600 billion-plus in total needs over 20 years, with 

the small annual federal appropriation, as I mentioned, in the most 

recent year there was about $7.7 billion of outlays, and so if you 

multiply that over 20 years, it is very simplistic, but you see that 

the funds, the revolving funds can address a significant, not maybe 

the majority, but a very significant percentage of total projected 

cost. It is a testament, I think, to the design of those funds and 

their management by the states that they are providing such an 

important resource. 

And just one other point, because of the different history of when 

the funds began and how much capital they have accumulated over 

time through annual appropriations, you really have to look at the 

clean water funds and the drinking water funds a little bit differently, since their capitalization is much different. The clean 

water fund has had more time and more money. 

Mr. SIMPSON. But as you say, $7.7 billion was invested in this 

over last year, and if you look over the next 20 years if the same 

rate of investment went on, you are talking about $150 billion, 

somewhere in that neighborhood. Over the next 20 years, what do 

you anticipate, or do you anticipate that backlog need would have 

grown? Would it have grown more than the $150 billion we invested? 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
261 

Mr. SHAPIRO. Well as I said, our current 20-year surveys suggest that the need we can account for is about $636 billion. Now, there 

are good reasons, and many people will probably proffer additional 

ones, why those numbers could well be low. They only account for 

projects that are fairly certain in terms of our ability to survey, so 

once you get out beyond 5 years, it is harder and harder to get accurate estimates, and I think a lot of people believe, for that reason, that those might be underestimates of the actual ultimate 20- 

year need. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Do we have any idea on what the growth rate of 

that needs assessment has been? When is the last time we did the 

GAP analysis? 

Mr. SHAPIRO. Well, there are two different things. The surveys 

take place roughly every 4 years. The results that I cited were from 

reports generated in 2008 and 2009. We have new survey results 

from the drinking water survey that should be coming out this 

year, and we have another round of survey information that will 

be coming out under the clean water survey in the near future. The 

GAP analysis that people referred to was one that was developed, 

I think, in 2002 and is based on a separate set of information and 

analyses. We have not repeated that GAP analysis. 

Mr. SIMPSON. When I was reading kind of the history of this, the 

first GAP analysis that was done—I do not know if it was a GAP 

analysis or if it was the 4-year survey that went on—by the time 

the next one was done, the need had grown by about $100 billion, 

in spite of the investment that was made over that time between 

the surveys. So I guess the question is, is while we can say we are 

going to put $150 billion into it totally over the next 20 years, if 

the need assessment is going to grow by $200 billion, we are losing 

ground. 

Mr. SHAPIRO. There is no question that certainly if you compare 

the most recent survey information that I cited with the previous 

survey, there was a significant increase in needs reported, and 

that, you know, we will have to see what the results of the next 

cycle are. But needs have been growing, that is correct. 

ASSET MANAGEMENT

Mr. SIMPSON. Are there ways to reduce the cost of the infrastructure building that we are doing, and what are those and what are 

the new technologies and so forth that are being used to reduce the 

cost of what these systems cost? 

Mr. SHAPIRO. Well, as GAO has pointed out, managing assets 

more efficiently and effectively should help reduce the total costs 

needed to provide good service. 

Mr. SIMPSON. What do you mean by managing assets more efficiently? 

Mr. SHAPIRO. Replacing pipes that are wearing out at the right 

time before they break and destroy streets, managing the replacement of infrastructure so that you are replacing it as it is needed 

in an effective way as opposed to either too early or too late, by 

doing a good job of cataloging and inventorying the assets in place, 

and a good process of auditing and updating the information so 

that you have a better sense of where the investments are needed 

more effectively. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
262 

Another tool that we think will have growing importance is, especially in dealing with the expenses associated with managing 

stormwater and combined sewer overflows, is the use of green infrastructure, as I mentioned, more natural approaches to using 

green space and infrastructure that deals more naturally with the 

flow of water to reduce the size of the gray infrastructure, the holding tanks, the storage facilities, that might be needed to deal with 

surge capacities associated with storms. That should reduce costs. 

So there are a number of tools that we have at our disposal to help 

mitigate some of the cost increases, and a lot of it comes down to 

being smart about using the best tools that are available, and 

smart about using and planning for a sustainable approach to asset 

management. 

Mr. GOMEZ. Mr. Chairman, if I could provide an example here. 

So in the work that we did looking at asset management, we 

talked to a lot of utilities and reported benefits from using asset 

management. For example, the improved decision making that they 

had about their capital assets, such as getting better understanding of maintenance as was mentioned, rehabilitation, and replacement needs. So for example, we heard the Seattle Public Utilities used asset management to target its maintenance resource. In 

particular, they used a risk-based approach to target pipeline repairs. So for example, they were looking at the age of the pipes, 

they were looking at the material, they were looking at the proximity to historic landfill, street slopes, to calculate the risk of ruptures. 

And so using that information, they were able to identify 15 percent of the pipes that were at high risk of rupture, and they were 

able to focus and repair those. So it allows them to get a good sense 

of their inventory, what the condition of that inventory is, and then 

focus their dollars on it. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Years ago when I sat on city council, I can remember we sent some of those monitors down some of our wastewater 

lines and water lines and all of that kind of stuff, and I was surprised to see that they were made of brick, a lot of them. And 

Idaho is a relatively new state compared to a lot of them. But tree 

roots had grown in and all of that type of thing. And we then went 

to steel and so forth. Are there other types of materials that could 

hopefully address this problem that would be cheaper or last longer 

or anything like that? 

Mr. GOMEZ. Not that we have discussed, but it is possible from 

your second panel that folks may have some ideas about newest 

technology. We also learned from using asset management that it 

provided for a more productive relationship with the governing authorities, rate payers, and others. So for example, the Louisville 

Water Company was able to use asset information to convince its 

governing board that it needed to increase rates because they 

would not be able to cover the expected costs. So I think it gives 

utilities the information that they need to make those cases to either increase rates or to focus attention on those areas that need 

it most. 

Mr. SHAPIRO. And as I understand, there has been continual improvement in the materials that are used for the underground infrastructure to improve their strength and durability. There has 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
263 

also been some real progress made in what is so-called in situ approaches to relining or even fully replacing pipes without having to 

dig up the city streets and incur the huge costs and disruptions associated with that. So industry has been responding, I think, creatively in figuring out how to do these jobs better and more efficiently. 

REGULATORY COSTS

Mr. SIMPSON. Last question. Do you know what the cost of—I 

want to say the cost of regulation, but all of it is due to regulation, 

I suspect, of some sort of another. But as that gap or that needs 

assessment grows, how much of that is growth because of increased 

regulations of new findings or new chemicals or the like? I think 

specifically if we lowered the arsenic standards to what is it, 10 

parts per billion now, and we lowered that from 50 parts per billion, which put increased pressure on small communities particularly to reduce that arsenic level, which has cost them an awful lot 

of money. Do we know the extent of the cost of the regulations? 

Mr. SHAPIRO. I do not have the information right in front of me, 

but our needs surveys do provide some estimates associated with 

costs incurred to meet regulations. But I would also have to say 

that typically those are not the majority of the costs that we are 

dealing with. The basic provision of, you know, the infrastructure 

in the case of drinking water to treat it to a point where it meets 

basic standards, get it distributed to residences or businesses, and 

the maintenance and continued upgrading of that is a large share 

of the total cost, and likewise in wastewater. The basic infrastructure for collecting and providing basic treatment is also a substantial cost. 

There is no doubt that as we identify important health-related 

reasons to lower our standards or to regulate materials that have 

not previously been regulated, there typically are additional costs, 

which we evaluate in the course of the rulemaking and try to be 

as accurate as possible in forecasting. 

Mr. GOMEZ. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to add to that point. 

So in our work, we did not focus on that particular issue, linking 

it to the regulations; however, what we did find, though, is that a 

good amount of that cost is due to the aging and deterioration of 

the infrastructure. 

Mr. SIMPSON. I just found out that the EPA and the states ar- rived at an estimate of $52 billion in regulatory costs versus the 

$282 billion in non-regulatory costs. 

Mr. Serrano. 

DISASTER RELIEF

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had a couple of questions myself, and then I inherited Mr. Moran’s binder, so I will mix 

and match here, Mr. Chairman, and you tell me when my time is 

up, so I will try to do the best I can here. 

Let me ask you a question that I had in two parts. The first part 

is the waterways and shorelines of my region in New York that 

were severely impacted by Hurricane Sandy. Rebuilding efforts are 

just getting underway and it is important that we do it in the 

smartest and most cost-effective way possible. Could you both 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
264 

speak about the ways in which the restoration and rebuilding from 

Hurricane Sandy is an opportunity to use green infrastructure 

projects, not just to filter and cleanse runoff but also to protect and 

secure communities against future storms. 

And the second part is what role do you folks play in a situation 

like that? Is it like FEMA where FEMA comes in and gets involved, or do you wait for the municipality to call you? We have 

had 9/11—New York years ago went through something that it 

never thought it would see, and we always saw graphics on TV 

about these kinds of storms but never saw them upfront. So now 

it is the issue of water and not just for the beaches but the water 

for drinking. So number one, or number two, you go in, what is 

happening, and what is the best way to deal with this as we rebuild? 

Mr. SHAPIRO. Well, I will answer number two first and then I 

will go back to number one. But EPA has a significant role as part 

of the overall plan for any emergency response situation. We are 

a member of the team and are typically called upon in situations 

which almost always occur in hurricanes, other kinds of natural 

disasters where there may be releases of pollutants or toxic chemicals. My own office, the Office of Water, works very closely with our 

emergency response colleagues at EPA as well as FEMA and other 

federal, Corps of Engineers in looking at issues of infrastructure 

damage and assessing responses that are needed either during the 

course of the emergency or in the recovery period that follows. 

So again, our exact role varies from emergency to emergency but 

in the case of Hurricane Sandy, we had EPA staff deployed to the 

federal response centers in New Jersey and New York to deal with 

a number of issues, among them assisting in assessing the availability and damage to water and wastewater infrastructure, so that 

is a very important part of our role. 

In the case of Hurricane Sandy, we have really been involved 

much more intensively in the recovery efforts than we have in the 

past, and as you know, Congress in its appropriations for recovery 

from Hurricane Sandy appropriated $600 million through the revolving loan programs to assist, and this is really unique, to assist 

not in the reconstruction of water and wastewater facilities that 

were damaged, because FEMA has resources to do most of that, 

but actually to look beyond, you know, kind of simply building the 

same things that were there before but rather enhancing as appropriate facilities and the infrastructure in ways that make them 

safer against hurricanes and flooding and other natural disasters 

and increase their resilience in the event that there is another— 

which there will be inevitably—another major hurricane or other 

natural disaster. So we are working closely with the states to figure out how to implement that unique piece of legislation through 

the revolving fund programs, and we hope, and the plan really is 

to integrate various federal resources so that our money gets used 

in a way that is appropriate but complements resources that would 

be available from FEMA as well as HUD in community development block grants, for example, that are being made available. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. SERRANO. Sure. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
265 

Mr. SIMPSON. So let me get this straight. FEMA pays for the construction, if you will, that was done by the hurricane to wastewater 

and water treatment facilities? 

Mr. SHAPIRO. FEMA has the authority to pay for restoring facilities that have been damaged, you know, once there is a natural 

disaster declaration, and the resources have been made available 

through the Hurricane Sandy appropriations to fund a substantial 

portion of that work. My understanding is, now they are in the 

process of assessing the damages and coming up with appropriate 

estimates. I am sorry. Should I continue? 

Mr. SERRANO. Sure. 

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE

Mr. SHAPIRO. So that moves into green infrastructure, and we 

are very much hoping that we will be able to work with the states 

and through EPA’s regional office as well as with other federal 

agencies so that the restoration activities that take place do provide a model for the use of approaches, green infrastructure and 

other complementary approaches, that enhance the resilience and 

protect the facilities in a more effective way than we were able to 

do in the past, so as my testimony points out, green infrastructure 

allows us to use natural features of the landscape as well as engineered structures like porous pavement and green roofs to slow 

down the surge of floodwater, to absorb it, to get part of it returned 

to the groundwater, part of it is lost through evapotranspiration so 

that there is less of a surge and a slug of pollutants that occurs 

during the storm. 

There are also aspects of green infrastructure such as use of either engineered or natural wetlands that can aid in resisting the 

surge of the ocean during a storm, absorb excess runoff and absorb 

pollutants so in general, to accomplish both the protection and resiliency goals in a way that is more effective and also as a benefit 

often provides attractive green space that enhances communities at 

the same time and deals with some other problems like helping to 

clean the air. So it is not a panacea for every problem but we see 

green infrastructure as being a major component of our infrastructure vision for the future. 

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Gomez. 

Mr. GOMEZ. So we have some upcoming work that is looking at 

how states and locals and the federal government are adapting to 

these kinds of events, and in particular we are looking at how utility efforts are adapting to storm damage. Rebuilding is a really 

good opportunity to see how you can better adapt to these events, 

so it is an excellent opportunity for folks to see what they can do 

to improve on the existing infrastructure. 

In terms of how else GAO can help is, GAO usually is asked to 

go in and look at the progress of the federal rebuilding efforts, so 

we have done that in the past and that is something where we 

could also see in this effort with Superstorm Sandy how the federal 

effort is progressing. 

Mr. SERRANO. Well, I thank you both for a very thorough answer. 

When I first got involved in politics a long time ago in the state 

assembly in New York, Mr. Chairman, water and so many other 

issues were issues not related to New York City, certainly not to 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
266 

the Bronx. Water was something that came through the faucet and 

that was it. We thought meat came from the supermarket. And 

then as you grow up and you understand what is going on, you realize how important it is. What has really changed is that, number 

one, people in crowded cities have in the last generation, or at least 

10, 15 years, and we have done with the Bronx River, and the 

Bronx, as you know, Mr. Chairman, just getting much more involved in using what is around them for recreation and making 

very serious statements about using that. And secondly, when you 

see a situation like this, more and more the urban centers are dealing with water issues, water availability and water pollution and 

so on and so forth. Now, these issues bring us together. They are 

not issues for someplace out West or in the South. They are also 

for the urban centers. So I thank you. 

CHESAPEAKE BAY RESTORATION

And Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I will ask one more 

question from Mr. Moran’s binder, because it affects us. Around 

here, you always see New York bagels, New York pizza. That is to 

tell you that they are selling a good product. In the Bronx, we have 

Maryland crabs, because if you put Bronx crabs, it may not go over 

that big, so we exploit our pizza and so on. 

So the question, Mr. Shapiro, is, you know that the Chesapeake 

Bay is on a ‘‘pollution diet’’ and our State of Virginia along with 

Delaware, D.C., Maryland, New York, West Virginia and Pennsylvania have to implement changes to reduce pollution into the bay 

watersheds. How much of the pollution problem in the bay is related to issues with wastewater treatment? And as Mr. Moran 

mentioned in his statement, D.C. needs to spend $2.6 billion to fix 

their combined sewer overflow problem that affects the bay. So we 

have a total figure for infrastructure needs to get the bay in compliance. And before you answer that question, if there is any reporter here, please do not get me in trouble in the Bronx. We do 

have other things that we offer other than crabs. 

Mr. SHAPIRO. Before I begin my response, I just want to compliment the work that has been done on the Bronx River. I think 

we really point to that as one of the models in the country for how 

in an urban area communities have come together around water 

and—— 

Mr. SERRANO. You know, a beaver came back after 200 years to 

New York City. 

Mr. SHAPIRO. Did he stay? 

Mr. SERRANO. He stayed. Ask me the beaver’s name. 

Mr. SHAPIRO. What is the beaver’s name? 

Mr. SERRANO. Jose. 

Mr. SHAPIRO. I learned something. Thank you. 

Getting on to the Chesapeake Bay, what we found in looking at 

the sources of pollution in the bay that the large wastewater treatment plants including Blue Plains but also others in the urban 

areas of the bay are a substantial source of nitrogen and phosphorus. The states at this point have stepped forward and put together a comprehensive plan for addressing the point sources, the 

wastewater treatment plants, and significantly reducing their loads 

of both nitrogen and phosphorus. At Blue Plains, the investments 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
267 

that are going on there as well as in cities across the bay watershed, really are testimonies to the willingness of communities to 

step up to help address the problems in the bay. But the wastewater treatment plants alone in managing their nutrients will not 

solve the problems, and our pollution diet that you referred to really calls for significant reductions from a variety of sources including agricultural sources, which have been contributing nutrients as 

well. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER [presiding]. Madam Chair. 

Mr. SERRANO. Madam Chair. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. That will probably be the only time I get 

to say that. It is pretty exciting. 

Mr. SERRANO. It comes sooner than you think. 

CLEAN WATER ACT REGULATIONS

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Well, I guess I am the next to ask a 

question. 

There was a couple of thoughts I had as I have been listening 

to this, and you have been sharing your comments about the urban 

water challenges and how you are addressing those. I come from 

a different situation in southwest Washington State. On the west 

side of the state, we actually get quite a bit of water, so much 

water that it is hard for us to imagine not having it. And one of 

the challenges, as you are talking about this and talking about the 

aging infrastructure, I was thinking about in one of my counties, 

we have seven very small cities and then a larger city. I do not 

know if you are familiar with the Western Washington Stormwater 

Manual. It is a step well beyond the Clean Water Act and what we 

have received even from the EPA. We have asked, is this under 

Clean Water what we are supposed to be doing, and we have had 

informal confirmation that no, that is the state going beyond. And 

what we are dealing with is, so I have got these small cities who 

have this aging water infrastructure and would like to update it, 

change it. And we have sewer needs just like everybody else, but 

the stormwater fees that are being added to these cities, these tremendous amounts of money have more to do with meeting a new 

regulatory standard that is not getting us the better, newer infrastructure. It is just more punitive in nature. 

So I was very interested in seeing—and the chairman asked the 

question about regulation versus just updating maintenance and 

doing what we need to do. Is there any way I could get some specific information about our region or Washington State in terms of 

the regulatory cost versus the aging infrastructure and the maintenance? Because that seems to be more where you all are focusing. 

Is that possible to get that information? 

Mr. SHAPIRO. I do not know how much specific detail we have in 

our surveys concerning just your part of the state because they are 

surveys, especially on the Clean Water side. We can check to see. 

FUNDING ARRANGEMENTS

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. I would be happy with statewide information as well. We just have very different parts. I mean, the west 

side is very different than the east side of the state. I assume that 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
268 

you keep some sort of information on that. Because that would 

allow us then to move into a place where we can put money into 

the maintenance. 

The other question I had, Mr. Gomez, your testimony was talking 

about different approaches to financing this infrastructure, one 

being some sort of a trust fund, a clean water trust fund. Immediately I was thinking about some of the infrastructure funds that 

we currently have—harbor maintenance trust fund, highway trust 

fund—all good, important uses that over the course of time and the 

wisdom of some have diluted those uses. I do not know if that is 

the right way to say it, but that money gets spread from its initial 

intended purpose. Do you envision ways or safeguards we can put 

into place if we were to create some sort of a trust fund that would 

specifically target this money so that we are not 10 years from now 

going back and saying well, this money was for—and yet we are 

not meeting our infrastructure needs. 

Mr. GOMEZ. Certainly. I mean, that was one of the issues that 

we raised in our report with the trust funds, one of the issues that 

stakeholders told us about is how are you going to structure it, how 

are you going to set it up, what are you going to finance. So it is 

all about how Congress sets it up. I mean, with the trust fund, you 

have a dedicated source of funding, but as we mentioned earlier 

too, I believe, the chairman noted it, is the difficulty of getting 

those funds in. You know, there are different various financing approaches that we looked at for the trust fund and different taxes, 

you know, taxes on bottled water, on pharmaceuticals, flushable 

items, but you raise the key point about what areas do you focus 

on. Some of the stakeholders said that it could complement, for example, the Clean Water SRF. Others said that it should be separate. So it all depends on how you structure it and how it is administered, and that would be one of the key issues. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Joyce. 

Mr. JOYCE. Thank you very much for being here today. Mr. Shapiro, I would like to ask you a question in sort of maybe follow-up 

to what our chairman was asking. You talked about the American 

Recovery and Investment Act and that the states were having authorities apportion their capitalization grants for additional subsidization, that is, principle—you said loan surplus. In these difficult economic times, do you think allowing private utility companies to join in and use these revolving funds that would be similar 

to the Safe Water and Drinking SRFs would expand programs that 

otherwise might not be expanded due to these tight times? 

Mr. SHAPIRO. Well, actually, to be clear, again, there are two 

funds. There is the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and the 

Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. Under the Drinking Water 

State Revolving Fund, privately owned community water systems 

can access the SRF money through loans. Under the Clean Water, 

they cannot. That is restricted to municipal wastewater utilities. 

And again, Congress made different judgments obviously. The 

Drinking Water Revolving Fund was created later in 1996. The 

Clean Water Fund was created in 1988, I believe. 

So some of that may reflect different perceptions about the nature of drinking water versus wastewater responsibilities on the 

part of government but the experience we have had under the 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
269 

drinking water program is that good projects have been put forward from both private and public utilities and each state makes 

its own decisions about how to rank and select projects but in general, both kinds of entities have been able to access funds through 

that mechanism. Again, I think it is sort of a public choice as to 

how you perceive the role of public sector versus the private sector 

for providing these kinds of infrastructure services. 

Mr. JOYCE. In follow-up to that question then, sir, you said the 

previous one, that would be the 1988 Clean Water Act, do you 

think that needs to be updated then to allow that to occur? 

Mr. SHAPIRO. I do not have a view on whether it needs to be updated. I think if we want to provide the ability for the fund to do 

that, it would clearly need a reauthorization, given the way that 

the statute is currently structured. 

Mr. JOYCE. But the latter one is working so it might be something to look into? 

Mr. SHAPIRO. It might be something that you would consider. 

Mr. JOYCE. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Let me ask one other question. Has the Administration or the EPA—I guess they are the same—proposed any form 

of financing this infrastructure differently along the lines of what 

was proposed or what was suggested by the GAO, whether it is an 

infrastructure bank or trust funds or whatever? 

Mr. SHAPIRO. As far as I know, there have been no alternative 

proposals put forward by the Administration for financing. I think 

we may have provided some technical assistance on questions that 

were asked about some of the different approaches and some of the 

legislative vehicles that have been explored but the Administration 

has not taken a position on any of them. 

Mr. GOMEZ. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to bring attention to 

one of the alternative approaches that actually is being used but 

not as often, and that is what we talked about earlier in publicprivate partnerships, and so as I noted earlier, we looked at seven. 

All of those seven involve private financing so it is a private company that is coming in and investing resources in a particular part 

of that infrastructure, and generally it is through a lease agreement or some type of contract. The communities do get an upfront 

payment, and so the lease terms range anywhere from 20 to 35 

years. We are not really sure why it is not used as often. I think 

the last one that we noted was used in 2008. All the others were 

back in the 1990s, whether it is the need for more education, but 

it is another mechanism that is out there that communities could 

use. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Sort of like a toll road. You mentioned during your 

testimony some of the pros and cons or the concerns that some people have about the public-private partnership. Of the seven that 

you looked at, are they working well? Are people happy with them? 

I know it is a hard standard to meet. 

Mr. GOMEZ. Well, one of them we learned actually terminated its 

contract because of difficulties that they were having but the others 

as we know are working at this point. We have not gone back to 

see. I believe this work we issued in 2010. But as we know, we talk 

to the cities, we talk to the folks that are doing these, and except 

for one that terminated, they are working. We did note all of the 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
270 

challenges. You know, there were some challenges in terms of 

things that people—there was public and political opposition from 

rate increases. There is also the issue of financing challenges, so 

because you have public and private monies coming together, how 

do you deal with tax exemption and IRS rules, so that was one of 

the challenges. One of the municipalities talked about a loss of control, so for example, once the lease is over, one of the communities 

that had a facility built and designed was not as familiar with the 

design and so they were just concerned that once the lease expires 

they are going to have to take it over, and they were not as comfortable at that point. So those are things that they are working 

through. 

RURAL COMMUNITY WATER INFRASTRUCTURE

Mr. SIMPSON. One of the other challenges we have in Idaho, like 

many other states, there are a lot of small communities. It is substantially probably more expensive per unit to deliver clean water 

and wastewater treatment to a town of six or seven or five or four 

or three thousand people than it is to a very large community. Are 

these public-private partnerships mostly in larger communities? 

Mr. GOMEZ. I believe the ones that we looked at, it was a mix. 

There were some smaller communities and—— 

Mr. SIMPSON. What do you mean by small? 

Mr. GOMEZ. Well, usually the definition, I believe, is under 

10,000 people. 

Mr. SIMPSON. I grew up in Idaho, and at the time, the eighth 

largest city in Idaho was just under 10,000. That is a challenge. 

Mr. SERRANO. I had 10,000 in my apartment building. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Are there specific—within the SRFs and so forth, 

are there ways to target some of these to smaller rural communities? Because I find they have the—especially I dealt with several 

of them trying to deal with the Arsenic Rule where it just becomes 

cost prohibitive for them to do anything with it. Do we target resources to some of the smaller rural communities? 

Mr. SHAPIRO. Well, I think there are two points. 

Mr. SIMPSON. And when I talk about rural communities, I am not 

talking about rural ones in New York. 

Mr. SHAPIRO. Right. Many states do in fact target smaller communities for technical assistance, especially under the Safe Drinking Water Act and the revolving fund that supports that. They can 

set aside resources to provide technical assistance to help smaller 

communities figure out what might best meet their needs. Often 

they have a lot of trouble getting to the point where they can put 

forward a good, solid proposal because they do not have the history 

and the in-house expertise to do the preliminary work and figure 

out the best alternatives. So we try to—the states try and we try 

to help through our efforts these smaller communities getting access to information and tools they need to plan, and then states in 

their priority-setting process are able to select communities that 

have a greater need for resources and often rural communities tend 

to both have high per-capita costs of service, as you pointed out, 

and in many cases are also not as wealthy as some of the larger 

communities. So the states have the ability to use the loan forgiveness provisions in both SRFs now to help those communities as 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
271 

well as select through their prioritization process preferences for 

communities that are more economically disadvantaged and have 

less access to other sources of capital. And our records show that— 

again, I have to use the 10,000 benchmark, but a substantial portion of the total SRF monies go to communities or projects serving 

communities less than 10,000. 

Mr. GOMEZ. So I just wanted to add to my comment earlier about 

public-private partnerships. So from our table in my statement, we 

do have Fairbanks, Alaska, which is probably over 10,000 people, 

probably a couple of apartment complexes. The PPPs that we 

looked at, some of them were small communities, and the reason 

being why they would look to these partnerships is because they 

do not have the capacity to manage so they were looking for others 

with that expertise, and that is one thing that we also learned is 

these private companies do have the expertise, they invest resources in research and development. 

But another point that I wanted to make in terms of what is out 

there for rural communities or these smaller communities, and that 

is that both EPA, as Mr. Shapiro mentioned, provides monies 

through the existing SRFs but also the U.S. Department of Agriculture through their Rural Utility Service targets communities 

under 10,000 people. So that is another area that is out there. And 

we did do work looking at rural utilities. And so we found that both 

EPA and USDA are working together now, more to streamline the 

application process because, historically, communities had to do 

two applications for these grants but we want to make sure that 

it is just one grant application so they do not do two engineering 

reports, two environmental analyses; they can just do one. Because 

that is an added cost to these utilities that we do not believe that 

they have to do. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Other questions for this panel? If not, we thank 

you for your testimony. 

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Yes. 

Mr. SERRANO. If I may, Mr. Chairman, would it be possible, with 

your permission, you know, that this subcommittee has been better 

than any other subcommittee in dealing with the issue of the territories, if they could at a later date report to us just what involvement the agency has in the territories so that we have a better understanding? 

Mr. SIMPSON. I did look at that in the GAO report because it also 

had the list of the needs in the territories. It also had the list of 

the needs on Indian reservations throughout the country and Alaska Native reservations. So we can get that for you. 

Mr. SERRANO. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SIMPSON. You bet. Thank you very much. We appreciate it. 

The second panel is Mr. Aurel Arndt, General Manager of the Lehigh County Authority in Pennsylvania. Mr. Arndt is testifying on 

behalf of the American Water Works Association. Ben Grumbles, 

the President of the U.S. Water Alliance. Howard Neukrug, Commissioner for the Philadelphia Water Department. Mr. Neukrug is 

testifying on behalf of the National Association of Clean Water 

Agencies. Jeff Sterba, President of American Water, New Jersey. 

Mr. Sterba is testifying on behalf of the National Association of 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
272 

Water Companies. And Thad Wilson, Vice President of M3 Capital 

Partners in Chicago. Welcome, and thank you for being here today. 

Mr. Arndt, I guess we will start with you. 

OPENING REMARKS OF MR. AUREL ARNDT

Mr. ARNDT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the subcommittee, good morning. 

I am here today representing the American Water Works Association and its 50,000 members across the United States. I am 

General Manager, as has been announced, of Lehigh County Authority, which provides water and wastewater service in the Lehigh 

Valley Region of Pennsylvania, which is about 40 to 50 miles north 

of our suburbs to the south in Philadelphia. 

One of the roles that I played over the years is, I have been a 

board member of the Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Authority, which is Pennsylvania’s SRF, also known as PennVest, so 

I can bring you some perspective in that regard. 

My comments today are going to focus on three things. I am 

going to talk a little bit about the water infrastructure investment 

need, I am going to talk about some current tools that we use to 

finance that infrastructure, and I am going to also introduce a new 

tool that we are strongly supporting, which we believe can help to 

enhance the pool of capital available for water infrastructure. We 

have all heard about the importance of water earlier here today, 

and not to diminish the importance of public health protection, environmental protection, public fire protection, but I think there are 

a couple of key economic findings that are also important related 

to water infrastructure. 

The Department of Commerce has estimated that for every dollar spent on water infrastructure, $2.62 is created in the economy as 

a result of that investment. In addition, every job in the water 

workforce actually creates 3.6 jobs in the national workforce, so it 

has a significant multiplier effect in the economy. 

About a year ago, the American Water Works Association produced a report which is called ‘‘Buried No Longer: Confronting 

America’s Water Infrastructure Challenge.’’ I believe we have provided copies of that report to the subcommittee. That report reveals 

that to restore our aging infrastructure, the buried infrastructure, 

which is largely the pipes, and to meet the needs of a growing population that we will have to spend $1 trillion over the next 25 

years, a significant sum and certainly greater than the number 

that you heard earlier. It is important to point out, as I mentioned, 

that this is only our buried infrastructure. In addition to that, we 

have our above-ground facilities, we have wastewater facilities, we 

have stormwater facilities and other water infrastructure which 

are at least as great as that. And to determine the total magnitude 

of investment needs, you need to add those two numbers to come 

up with the real scope of what is in front of us. 

The American Water Works has had a longstanding position that 

water systems should be financed through customer rates and selfsustaining through customer rates and charges. In that way, the 

customers make much better use decisions in terms of their water 

and wastewater usage, and in addition, communities make better 

investment decisions. But the funds that are available from those 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
273 

sources are sometimes inadequate. As an example, many times it 

is difficult to finance large regional or national-scale water infrastructure projects because of the sheer magnitude of those numbers, and the current tools that we have are not adequate to address those types of projects, among others. 

So the real question is, what tools do we need going forward? 

And our association has supported the development of a robust 

toolkit which includes a variety of different approaches that can be 

used for financing that water infrastructure. Among them, the current tools that we have available are the use of tax-exempt bonds, 

Build America bonds, private activity bonds, and the state revolving loan funds. I am not going to comment on all of these. I believe 

some of our other panelists are going to address some of those 

items. However, I do want to point out that tax-exempt bonds are 

used by at least 70 percent of the water utility systems across the 

country. The dependence on that source of funding, which is the 

primary source of capital to invest in our infrastructure, is critical 

and we need to preserve that. We fully recognize that there are 

many issues considering the economic circumstances that our country faces including the issue of availability of tax-exempt bonds, 

but we feel that any change to diminish the availability or increase 

the cost related to tax-exempt bonds can only serve to hurt our 

ability to finance that water infrastructure given that dependency 

that we have based on current circumstances. 

We also urge you to restore the full payment that was promised 

by the federal government to issuers of Build America bonds, which 

have been cut as a result of the sequester. Ultimately, the result 

of that is that the available funding for investment in our capital 

infrastructure is diminished by that loss of revenue that was promised by the federal government when those bonds were issued. 

Mr. SIMPSON. If I could ask, how much was that loss of revenue? 

Mr. ARNDT. I believe it is about 7 or 8 percent, and potentially 

we have been told that could grow going forward. 

Beyond those current tools, the American Water Works Association has been advocating the creation of a new program called 

WIFIA, the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act, 

which is patterned after the highly regarded and successful Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act, or TIFIA, as 

I am sure you know it. We believe that WIFIA can fill a significant 

gap or void that exists in our financing toolbox that we have available to us. As I mentioned earlier, large projects typically are unable to tap into the state revolving loan funds because a single 

project or perhaps a few large projects could essentially deplete the 

total funding that is available through many of the state SRFs, and 

they are already—most of them are already oversubscribed. 

I would like to talk a little bit about some of the features of the 

WIFIA program as we foresee it. WIFIA would be able to provide 

loan guarantees and other forms of credit support to utility systems 

that are proposing to finance water infrastructure, and the two 

types of recipients that this concept envisions is that utilities sponsoring large projects, and for purposes of beginning a dialog, we 

have suggested that any utility sponsoring a project greater than 

$20 million would be able to obtain direct funding from the WIFIA 

program. In addition, the SRFs would be able to leverage their proVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:45 Jul 20, 2013 Jkt 081687 PO 00000 Frm 00273 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A687P2.XXX A687P2

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
274 

grams by aggregating smaller loans from those smaller systems 

that you spoke about earlier and aggregating those loans to a pool 

of $20 million and be able to tap into the WIFIA program as well. 

The way the program would work, again, very much like TIFIA, 

is that the Treasury would provide the funding to the WIFIA program. In turn, WIFIA would make the loan guarantees or issue the 

credit support to either those large project sponsors or to the SRFs, 

and in turn, the system recipients of those loans or other credit 

support would pay fees and/or interest on the loans, which money 

would be returned to WIFIA over a period of time and then in turn 

WIFIA would return those funds to the Treasury. In many ways, 

it is a self-liquidating program. There is certainly an initial outlay 

but one that is repaid in the future. 

One of the most important features of the WIFIA program as we 

see it is that it has minimal cost to the federal government. Under 

the Federal Credit Reform Act, Congress needs only to appropriate 

the subsidy cost or, if you will, the net long-term cost of the program. For two reasons, this cost to the federal government is actually very minimal. First of all, as I mentioned a moment ago, the 

program is self-liquidating so the funds out are repaid over a period of time, in many cases with interest or with additional fees 

that are attached to the financing. The second feature is that water 

debt in general has one of the highest credit ratings and best credit 

histories of all types of public indebtedness that is out there. Fitch 

Rating Services, one of the three largest rating agencies, determined a few years ago that the default rate on water infrastructure 

financing is four-hundredths of a percent, and this was done over 

several decades. So the likelihood of receiving that full repayment 

back to the federal Treasury is very, very strong. 

In addition, the SRFs that exist around the country that leverage 

their programs currently through the issuance of additional bonds, 

there has been no history of default, so they of course have, if you 

will, 1.000 batting average, and so again, there is a great assurance 

of repayment of those funds. 

Last session, last year, as a matter of fact, Representative Bob 

Gibbs from Ohio circulated a draft of this legislation for comment 

and review and actually conducted two hearings in that regard approximately a year ago in February and March of 2012. We urge 

Congress to enact Mr. Gibbs’ draft and move that tool forward so 

that water utilities will be able to access this very important and 

useful tool to fill the gaps that result from the existing tools that 

are out there and to broaden the capabilities of the financing that 

we currently have available. 

In short, we believe WIFIA will allow our Nation to build more 

infrastructure at less cost, and on top of that, we get a cleaner environment, better public health and safety, and a stronger economy. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
275 

I would like to thank the committee for this opportunity again 

to appear before you. I would like to congratulate you on your leadership on this issue, and I found the earlier round of questions very 

intriguing, and you are certainly finding the type of complex issues 

that we have been grappling with on a day-to-day basis as water 

suppliers, and we look forward to working with you to address 

those. 

[The statement of Aurel Arndt follows:] 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
276 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 316 here 81687A.176
277 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 317 here 81687A.177
278 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 318 here 81687A.178
279 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 319 here 81687A.179
280 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 320 here 81687A.180
281 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 321 here 81687A.181
282 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 322 here 81687A.182
283 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 323 here 81687A.183
284 

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Grumbles. 

OPENING REMARKS OF MR. BENJAMIN GRUMBLES

Mr. GRUMBLES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Congressman 

Serrano, I really appreciate the opportunity to appear before you. 

I am Ben Grumbles, President of the U.S. Water Alliance, and I 

too want to commend you and Congressman Moran and the staff 

for putting together a critically important hearing and the great 

discussion so far this morning. 

I think Governor Rendell said it, but he said that you cannot sustain a world-class economy with a second-class infrastructure system. The bottom line is that as much success as we have had in 

building an enviable around-the-world, an enviable water and 

wastewater infrastructure system, it is showing signs of age. The 

needs are growing. The public funding is decreasing, and I cannot 

think of a more important topic today to talk about than shifting 

that paradigm from water being invisible to invaluable, and finding 

some innovative and collaborative ways to fund our Nation’s future 

when it comes to water and stormwater and wastewater. 

The U.S. Water Alliance is a truly unique, nonprofit, educational 

organization. We have drinking water, clean water, stormwater, agricultural, energy, public and private sector individuals coming together, through leaders to collaborate on shifting some of the paradigms. Howard Neukrug, who is on the panel, is the Vice Chair, 

and we have had some real thoughtful leaders—urban water, rural 

water—shift the paradigm. And you know full well, in fact, you 

have been displaying it this morning, that hope and policy themselves do not treat the water and make it clean, do not meet the 

needs for businesses and communities; you need funding as well as 

vision on policies and regulatory strategies. 

So just three points I wanted to make very briefly while I still 

have your attention, and one of those is the most fundamental first 

step in addressing this growing crisis on water and wastewater infrastructure is the value proposition, valuing water to support people and ecosystems, the value of water. I am honored to be part of 

a coalition. Jeff Sterba, sitting to my left, is one of the leaders in 

a public-private coalition that will only grow to increase public 

awareness about the value of water, the worth of water, that will 

make your job easier in the long run because of the understanding 

at the local level and nationally of the critical need to invest more. 

There is a difference between price and cost and value, and as a 

Nation, we cannot afford to keep water so cheap. The price is an 

inherently local matter but it becomes a national issue when we 

are not finding sustainable and dedicated sources of funding for infrastructure, and all water is local but also, if that thought prevailed, we would not have a Clean Water Act or Safe Drinking 

Water Act. And you are showing some leadership by drawing attention to this issue, and the first step is really a national effort with 

Congressional support, with support from the private sector, local 

utility leaders, is really getting out the word about the worth of 

water and the need to invest more in it, not just the infrastructure 

but the ecosystems that are provided. 

The other major point is the partnering, and what a great discussion this morning about public-private partnerships, and you have 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
285 

got real experts on this panel about that. I would just simply say, 

particularly because our organization has a perfect blend of public 

and private sector enthusiasts, you need both, and you need to 

move into the future and more innovative approaches. The private 

activity bond legislation that was proposed in the last Administration and also this last year moved through the House. I think this 

is a very important step forward. The key part of it, though, is that 

it is not making decisions for communities as to who owns or operates their water and wastewater systems; it is removing an artificial state volumetric cap on private activity bonds, and that could 

lead to new money to the tune of $5 billion a year dedicated to the 

effort. I do not know, but I know it is one positive step and it also 

signals that Congress cannot just rely on the SRFs or one single 

mechanism and that there needs to be federal involvement and 

help to supplement the 95 or 97 percent of the funding that comes 

at the local level for water and sewer infrastructure. 

Then the last point, besides the valuing of water and the 

partnering between the public and private sector, is really this paradigm shift in greening the infrastructure. It is not in lieu of gray 

infrastructure. There is always going to be a need for a hybrid, a 

mix, but greening the infrastructure and also recovering the resources—I would just simply say, particularly the U.S. Water Alliance working with other organizations, particularly NACWA and 

WEF and others—the leaders in this effort fully believe that there 

are great benefits and energy and money savings through green infrastructure, and sometimes it is not about federal dollars, it is 

about federal willingness and support to sometimes provide a soft 

landing for innovative communities like Philadelphia, who want to 

do some innovative work. We may not get it right on the first try 

but if the environmental community and the regulators are there 

with them, we can get some amazing progress on that front. And 

the resource recovery, I am impressed by the product that just 

came out by the Water Environment Federation, NACWA, the National Association of Clean Water Administrators, and the Water 

Environment Research Foundation on the utility of the future. I 

know Howard’s testimony talks about that at length. Mr. Chairman, that is really about looking at wastewater facilities, formerly 

viewed as treat-and-discharge facilities, as centers of regeneration, 

as green factories, and that will produce energy and money and a 

more sustainable approach. 

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Serrano, thank you so 

much for shining a spotlight on this critical issue of water infrastructure financing. I look forward to a good, robust discussion. 

[The statement of Benjamin Grumbles follows:] 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
286 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 329 here 81687A.184
287 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 330 here 81687A.185
288 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 331 here 81687A.186
289 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 332 here 81687A.187
290 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 333 here 81687A.188
291 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 334 here 81687A.189
292 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 335 here 81687A.190
293 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 336 here 81687A.191
294 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. 

Mr. Neukrug. 

OPENING REMARKS OF MR. HOWARD NEUKRUG

Mr. NEUKRUG. Thank you both for your leadership. My name is 

Howard Neukrug. I am the Water Commissioner for the City of 

Philadelphia. I also serve on the board of directors of the National 

Association of Clean Water Agencies, also more commonly known 

as NACWA, and we represent over 350 municipal wastewater utilities. 

Congressman Serrano, you will not see it on my bio that was 

submitted here, but I did have a little canoe trip down the Bronx 

River a couple of years ago, and I highly recommend it for everyone. It really shows everything that is right and could be great 

about America’s waterways. At the same time, you see the pollution and the problems and the amount of money that is needed to 

make improvements to a river like the Bronx River, so I commend 

you on your work here. 

Modernizing the country’s aging infrastructure may be the single-most important public works need facing our Nation. Nothing 

less than full attention, focus and support of federal, state, local, 

private sector and public water utility industry will be needed to 

tackle what EPA is estimating at $635 billion need over the next 

20 years. 

Today, U.S. cities like Philadelphia bear almost the entire burden of the costs of clean water. As an industry, we have been raising rates by more than double the rate of inflation for the last 10 

years and probably for the next 20 years up to and sometimes beyond the limits of our customers’ ability to pay, and there is still 

a backlog today of over $40 billion local water infrastructure 

projects. Given the enormity of these numbers and the criticality 

of water to society, it really remains vital that the federal government continue to leverage local investments in infrastructure by 

supporting programs like the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. 

NACWA believes that a clean water trust fund modeled after the 

highway trust fund is still the best option to help ensure a sustainable, dedicated and reliable revenue stream into the SRF system, 

and Chairman Simpson, thank you very much for your support of 

that concept. 

Outside the jurisdiction of this committee but also needed is for 

Congress to maintain the tax-exempt status of municipal bonds. If 

limited or eliminated, it would increase the costs of local borrowing 

by billions of dollars, effectively reducing the capital investment 

that utilities can make in our cities and our towns. With the partnership between the federal government and local utilities, we are 

and we will continue to find ways to leverage every dollar. Utility 

leaders in Philadelphia and elsewhere are working to turn waste 

streams into resources that produce energy, recycle clean water 

and recover heat and nutrients. We are driving innovation in green 

infrastructure and adaptive management. Our vision is to meet 

these complex responsibilities and opportunities of our times using 

the most innovative and efficient means that are possible. 

Philadelphia is extremely proud of our innovative $50 million 

Biogas Cogeneration Facility now under construction using a pubVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:20 Jul 20, 2013 Jkt 081809 PO 00000 Frm 00294 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A687P2.XXX A687P2

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
295 

lic-private partnership model, all with private investment. We will 

be using the methane gas byproduct of our treatment process to 

safely generate 6 megawatts of electricity, which is more than 80 

percent of the power and heat needed to run this large wastewater 

plant. Last year, using another public-private partnership model, 

we developed a $60 million sludge pelletization facility, and I know 

that may not sound pretty but we are successfully repurposing environmental waste into a vital nutrient resource and saving millions of dollars in the process. Both of these projects were developed using private equity dollars. They are good for the environment, they reduce our operating costs, and they leave precious public capital dollars available for Philadelphia to invest in its aging 

infrastructure. 

Finally, one of our most celebrated efforts to date has been the 

newly launched Green Cities, Clean Waters partnership, which restores local waterways and manages stormwater runoff with costeffective green infrastructure. This massive undertaking to green 

and update our infrastructure for the 21st century is absolutely essential and reliant on strong public and private sector partners. We 

are thrilled that we have been able to partner with the EPA to 

overcome financial barriers by adding regulatory flexibility without 

sacrificing water quality, and we are proud to be among the Nation’s first partners with the EPA to use an integrated approach to 

water management. 

We have come a long way in cleaning up our rivers and our 

streams but we still struggle, and as our infrastructure grows 

older, as it has been made very clear here, it does not grow any 

stronger. Significant investment is and will be needed to make an 

update on network of pipes and facilities while the costs of operating those aging systems continue to track higher. We are investing in innovation, adaptation, flexibility and resilience, and are 

glad to see the federal government at the table with us with the 

same vision and goals. 

There are many ideas floating around Washington on how the 

federal government should support local investment in infrastructure, and all have some merits and some pitfalls, but there is nothing more dangerous than continuing down a path of underfunded 

and undervalued water infrastructure. We must work together to 

find a solution that works under these times of reduced discretionary spending, high unemployment and poverty, and the absolute need for a sound water infrastructure system in the United 

States. Utility leaders across the country are ready to transform 

our industry and leverage our ratepayers’ investments to guarantee 

water quality and an environment that is sustainable and 

unrivaled, so thank you for this opportunity. 

[The statement of Howard Neukrug follows:] 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
296 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 342 here 81687A.192
297 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 343 here 81687A.193
298 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 344 here 81687A.194
299 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 345 here 81687A.195
300 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 346 here 81687A.196
301 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 347 here 81687A.197
302 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 348 here 81687A.198
303 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 349 here 81687A.199
304 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 350 here 81687A.200
305 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. 

Mr. Sterba. 

OPENING REMARKS OF MR. JEFFRY STERBA

Mr. STERBA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Serrano. It is great 

to join you today. We serve about 15 million customers in a little 

over 30 states in the United States plus some provinces of Canada. 

I am here representing our company as well as NAWC, the National Association of Water Companies, which represents the private water industry made up of a number of providers throughout 

the United States. 

Earlier, Mr. Chairman, you talked about the 250 years. Let me 

give you another angle on the 250 years. At the rate—and this is 

why I believe that the number of what it will cost to maintain the 

kind of infrastructure the United States deserves is not $633 billion but much higher than that. The rate at which we are replacing 

the infrastructure that exists today underground means that we 

are expecting that that infrastructure will last 250 years. That 

means that what was put into the ground by Thomas Jefferson at 

Monticello is about coming up for replacement. That is a little difficult to believe as a viable scenario. So the $633 billion is really 

based on doing what we do today when that is not sufficient to provide the level of service that I think customers need in the future. 

Let me in the brief time just touch on four aspects that can help 

on the financing front, and it is focused on—there is really two 

pieces. One is, how do we manage the cost of financing, which goes 

to what are interest rates, the use of tax-exempt debt, etc. The second is, how do we bring more capital into the market because the 

level of capital that has been committed, particularly from the public sector, is not sufficient. So let me address those two related 

things. 

The first item I would raise is an issue that we have run into 

in a number of occasions through our public-private partnership 

work. There is a tax inefficiency if a municipality or another public 

entity wants to lease or sell its system to a private entity. So in 

a public-private partnership, there is a lease, and we effectively 

will lease that system. But if tax-exempt debt was used to finance 

those assets, then that tax-exempt debt must be defeased. Even 

though the city still retains ownership and the city is still accountable for that debt, that tax-exempt debt must be defeased. The cost 

of that defeasance is anywhere from a 15 to a 25 percent penalty 

on top of the amount of debt that is outstanding. That does not go 

to the U.S. Treasury, so it is no help to the federal government. It 

does not go to customers. In fact, it is a drain on customers because 

it will increase rates in the longer term and it takes capital out of 

circulation. It is basically sitting in an account for the benefit of 

bondholders. This is an easy change to be made administratively, 

and we have proposed to the Administration a change in rules that 

would relieve this and put it back into the way that the regulations 

were interpreted in the pre-1986 window where this issue did not 

come up. So that is a fairly easy one and can provide great benefits 

to communities. 

The second one, which Ben mentioned, is private activity bond 

reform. Right now, water sits under the volume cap and that is a 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
306 

significant constraint. So we have supported, NAWC has supported 

and this House has been very supportive of having legislation that 

would remove the volume cap, as is done today for solid waste for 

airports and a number of other elements. Now, I will note that 

there has been some well-founded criticism of how private activity 

bonds have been used. I think the classic example is $1.6 billion 

of PABs being used to build a company’s headquarters in Manhattan. I want to distinguish between that kind of usage of PABs and 

what happens in the water business. In the water business, PABs 

would be used specifically for infrastructure, infrastructure that is 

going to stay in that community, hopefully not 250 years, but let’s 

say 100 years, and will be there to serve customers for the long 

term. Also, the benefit of that tax-exempt debt does not flow to 

shareholders, it flows through to customers and rates, because as 

a regulated utility, as all of our private water companies are, we 

operate on cost of service, and so the cost of that debt and the savings associated with tax-exempt debt flows directly through to customers. So I will make that distinction. 

The third area I would touch on is the notion of state revolving 

funds and eligibility, and we are very strongly supportive of the 

state revolving fund mechanism. I would clarify something that I 

think Mike said in his comments in the last panel. Under the 

Drinking Water Act, private companies are eligible to receive state 

revolving fund loans but only if the state approves it. So over half 

the states in the United States do not allow private companies to 

qualify or to apply for state revolving fund loans, yet what we find 

is that the needs of those private companies are included in the use 

surveys that are submitted to the EPA. So that seems to be something that could be easily fixed. And then as Mike mentioned on 

the clean water side, there are not provisions relative to allowing 

private entities to utilize the state revolving funds. 

The last thing I would mention is on this notion of public-private 

partnerships. We have found that they can—they are not a panacea but they can be very effective and very useful. Howard has 

the advantage of running a relatively large system that has some 

sophistication to it in terms of the capacity to enter into those 

kinds of agreements. Three-P agreements are complex, and for a 

small community to look at entering into one of those with the 

legal, financial and other ramifications, the transaction costs can 

be very high. Canada, just as an example, has done something different where they have created a corporation that is originally 

founded by the government that provides the facilitation for communities to develop public-private partnerships. You have to go 

through them if you are going to use any public monies. It requires 

that somewhere near 80 percent of the money must come from private coffers, so that is what we are trying to do is, pull more private capital into the marketplace, and they are able to help manage those transaction costs by creating some standardization to 

these agreements because, no offense meant, but you put five lawyers in the room, you are going to get six different agreements, and 

that is what happens in a lot of the PPPs unless you have the discipline that Howard or some of the other large communities can 

bring to the table. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
307 

So with that, I want to thank you all very much for your time 

and for taking on this issue. There are major challenges, but I got 

to tell you, from my vantage point, they are all resolvable. 

[The statement of Jeffry Sterba follows:] 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
308 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 356 here 81687A.201
309 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 357 here 81687A.202
310 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 358 here 81687A.203
311 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 359 here 81687A.204
312 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 360 here 81687A.205
313 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 361 here 81687A.206
314 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 362 here 81687A.207
315 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 363 here 81687A.208
316 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 364 here 81687A.209
317 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. 

Mr. Wilson. 

OPENING REMARKS OF MR. THAD WILSON

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Chairman Simpson and Ms. McCollum. 

It is an honor to be here today to discuss water infrastructure financing options. My name is Thad Wilson. I am a Vice President 

with M3 Capital Partners. We are a management-owned investment firm based in Chicago. Through an advisory affiliate, M3 currently manages equity commitments of over $3.4 billion on behalf 

of a U.S. public pension plan. 

M3 is currently forming a North American water infrastructure 

fund that we anticipate will be initially capitalized by U.S. public 

pension plan investors. It is expected that the fund will focus primarily on offering an innovative design-build-operate-finance approach that we believe offers a robust form of public-private partnership, or P3, to municipalities to capitalize their water infrastructure improvements. 

In the United States today, there is a significant and growing 

need for investment in critical water infrastructure, as we have 

heard this morning, and given current funding challenges, accessing private capital through P3 structures may be a compelling option for municipalities. At the same time, public pension plans need 

long-term investments that can provide stable returns for their 

beneficiaries—teachers, firefighters, police officers and other public 

employees. 

There are various P3 structures municipalities can consider to 

meet their water infrastructure financing needs including structures that utilize an upfront equity investment to capitalize 

projects as part of a long-term concession agreement between a municipality and a private investor partner. The investor partner may 

be comprised of a public pension plan or an infrastructure fund, 

which provides most of the upfront equity for the project, and a 

service provider, which provides the experience and expertise to 

implement the project. That investor partner typically assumes key 

risks associated with the design, construction, operations, maintenance and/or financing of the project. To the extent the investor 

partner meets established performance levels, the upfront investment plus an appropriate return is effectively returned to the investor partner over the life of the P3 through service fees paid by 

the municipality. 

As was cited early this morning, the city of Santa Paula, California, provides a recent P3 example. The city’s wastewater treatment facility was built in 1939 and was out of compliance and 

needed to be replaced. Facing a tight deadline to avoid over $8 million in fines, the city moved that project forward under a designbuild-operate-finance procurement process. In July 2008, just two 

months after the contract was awarded, the investor partners 

broke ground on that project, and in May 2010, a new water recycling facility was in full operation seven months before the compliance deadline. 

Two examples of P3s for existing water and wastewater systems 

were structured last year in the cities of Bayonne, New Jersey, and 

Rialto, California. In both cases, the investor partners made upVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:20 Jul 20, 2013 Jkt 081809 PO 00000 Frm 00317 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A687P2.XXX A687P2

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
318 

front payments to fund initial capital improvements and other community needs and assumed responsibility for the operations and 

maintenance of the subject water facilities during that P3 term. 

In my view, the primary benefits of water infrastructure P3s include the following. Because a P3 is not a sale or privatization, municipalities can retain long-term ownership and control of their 

water facilities. Municipalities can accelerate the launch of new 

projects, which may help to meet compliance deadlines and may 

generate near-term employment opportunities for the local economy. Municipalities can transfer key risks to the investor partner. 

As a result, the investor partner is well assigned with the municipality and is putting its capital at risk with a requirement to perform its obligations throughout the term of the P3. And finally, municipalities can potentially realize lifecycle cost savings as a fully 

integrated team takes on the responsibility to design, build, operate 

and finance their water infrastructure projects. 

Potential measures to facilitate more water infrastructure P3s 

include the following: increasing awareness of the potential benefits of P3 structures combined with efforts to implement regulations that facilitate the use of P3s similar to the efforts in Canada 

that were just mentioned, helping to lower the costs of the debt financing for private investor partners in water facility P3s, potentially by removing the state volume cap on private activity bonds 

for such projects, and by promoting additional policies to facilitate 

low-cost funding for P3, potentially through the SRF program or 

the WIFIA program that was mentioned earlier. With access to 

low-cost debt financing, investor partners could deliver such 

projects to municipalities based on a lower overall cost of capital, 

generating cost savings that ultimately could be passed onto the 

community ratepayers. 

Thank you for your time today and for your consideration of this 

important issue. 

[The statement of Thad Wilson follows:] 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
319 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 369 here 81687A.210
320 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 370 here 81687A.211
321 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 371 here 81687A.212
322 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 372 here 81687A.213
323 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 373 here 81687A.214
324 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 374 here 81687A.215
325 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 375 here 81687A.216
326 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 376 here 81687A.217
327 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 377 here 81687A.218
328 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 378 here 81687A.219
329 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 379 here 81687A.220
330 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 380 here 81687A.221
331 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 381 here 81687A.222
332 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 382 here 81687A.223
333 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 383 here 81687A.224
334 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 384 here 81687A.225
335 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 385 here 81687A.226
336 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, and again, thank all of you for being 

here today. 

STATE PRIVATE EQUITY BONDS

As I said in my opening statement, I actually think this is one 

of the biggest challenges we face, and there are a lot of challenges 

around this country but we are, as I say in speeches a lot, we are 

the beneficiaries of our forefathers’ investment in infrastructure, 

and most people when you say infrastructure think of roads and 

bridges, but you are not only talking roads and bridges, you are 

talking dams, harbors, all of the infrastructure we have in this 

country. You go to foreign countries and look at the infrastructure 

challenges they have that have not had this type of investment 

from their forefathers, and we are not keeping up with it, frankly. 

It is an investment that we have to make if we are going to address these problems. It is not just addressing the infrastructure, 

it is also being able to address the rest of the parts of the budget 

that deal with it, which makes us not be able to do a good job there 

and not address the problems that we are having with water infrastructure. 

Now, three of you mentioned removing the cap on state private 

activity bonds. Have any states tried to exceed that cap or add the 

cap level or anything currently? 

Mr. ARNDT. Our association had done an analysis a few years 

ago, and most of the states exceed or max out, they do not have 

available funds, and given the competition for those private activity 

bonds, it is very difficult for water-related infrastructure projects to 

access those monies. So they are very limiting in regard to making 

monies available for water. 

Mr. STERBA. What Aurel said at the end is really important. Remember that you have got many other competing needs, which 

frankly are visible. Water is invisible, and so it tends to get to the 

bottom of the rung because of that, and so it is not only that it does 

not get its fair share, it is that it is at the bottom of the table. 

Mr. WILSON. It was also pointed out, these are long-term projects 

and take a long time to structure and review and get through approval, and a level of certainty around the availability of those 

funds over a period of time would be important. 

Mr. SIMPSON. You are right. One of the real challenges you have 

here is that nobody really thinks about where water comes from 

until it does not come. Nobody thinks about what happens when 

you flush the toilet unless it does not flush, and that really is the 

challenge. When you drive on a road that ruins your front-end 

alignment, people notice that right away. So this is the invisible infrastructure that has to be addressed. 

FINANCING POOLS

You mentioned creating a trust fund like the highway trust fund 

or the airport trust fund or the harbor maintenance trust fund or 

the inland waterways trust fund. We have a lot of trust funds. 

What do you tax to put in there? 

Mr. NEUKRUG. Well, I look at these bottles, and there is about 

$15 worth of bottled water here, and the city of Washington could 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
337 

supply that to you for less than a penny. I think there is room 

for—— 

Mr. SIMPSON. Is it not amazing that people will complain about $3.50 gas but will pay for a bottle of water. 

Mr. NEUKRUG. It is really incredible, and we have it here because 

it is convenient but it is not a necessity, and I think this is a prime 

example. As a matter of fact, when you look at our waterways and 

you look at the floatables, the trash that is in our waterways, 

whether it comes through the wastewater process or just overland, 

it is predominantly these bottles. So I think there is a very good 

case to be made that is one location. Another area, of course, is 

flushables, what we call in Maryland the toilet paper tax, where 

you will be using things that actually have a relationship to the 

water I think are eligible areas for this. 

Mr. SIMPSON. What about the idea of creating a national infrastructure bank, as some people have suggested? How would that 

work? Any ideas? None of you mentioned this, so I hate to ask you. 

Mr. ARNDT. My presumption is that it would be some form of indebtedness that would be necessary to provide the capital, the seed 

capital, for that type of an entity. It was actually one of several alternatives that we looked at before we settled on this WIFIA approach. The difficulty from our perspective with a trust fund or 

with a water infrastructure bank is that essentially you have a dollar in equals a dollar out, whereas with WIFIA, because of the Federal Credit Reform Act, every dollar that is appropriated for a 

WIFIA-like program actually is leveraged. In TIFIA, for example, 

there is a ten-to-one leveraging ratio, so every dollar that is appropriated actually provides $10 in spending authority, and it is because of only needing to fund that subsidy cost, and I think we 

could make the case that in the case of water infrastructure, that 

the leveraging ratio should be even higher. So for every dollar you 

appropriate for a WIFIA-type program, you get a much larger 

spending capability and a much larger infrastructure investment. 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Mr. Chairman, so I was, like a few people in the 

room, like Tom Curtis, I was around on Capitol Hill working as a 

staffer when the state revolving fund model for the Safe Drinking 

Water Act was enacted, and also back in 1986 the Clean Water 

State Revolving Fund, a program which the President vetoed and 

then vetoed it again and it was overridden by the Congress and put 

into place with a very clear end date in terms of the authorizations 

but it was also very clear that Congress and the American people 

wanted it to continue because of the model. The basic point I would 

make on this with your question about a national infrastructure 

bank, it is not just a question of where the dedicated funding comes 

from, it is also where the fund resides, and that is—I think one of 

the reasons that the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund model has been so successful is it is really not a fund, 

it is 50 funds or different funds. They have a designated agency, 

is this case, EPA, being the go-between and overseeing the federal 

dollars through Congressional appropriations but it has devolved 

down into the states, who actually run the programs, as the Council of Infrastructure Finance Authorities would tell you. 

One big concern that some have about a national infrastructure 

bank, even though it draws needed attention to infrastructure, is, 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
338 

there is such a track record of water being put at the back of the 

bus or under the bus, and roads and bridges, which are very important, or airports getting most of the attention, and so that is part 

of the concern. And then when you create a national infrastructure 

bank, does that then create a vacuum and the support for the state 

revolving funds under clean water and drinking water proven successful programs, do they get shortchanged because of a new infrastructure bank? So that is some of the concerns or perspectives 

that I think you are already aware of. 

Mr. STERBA. That goes to the issue, just like the PAB question, 

of, if you have everything under one umbrella, how do you allocate 

and get prioritization, and so you have to find a way around that, 

and that is where, I think, these targeted mechanisms can be appropriate. The thing that I keep struggling with, though, is, if you 

do not—if you decide to create a trust fund and you tax something, 

that is creating a revenue stream that is pulling money out of a 

private side—and you are hoping that that will be multiplied over. 

Under most of these mechanisms, though, the real question for me 

is, are we really creating more money? Are we creating new capital 

that will flow, or are we just changing the price at which that capital gets charged? It seems to me that in this situation, we really 

need to find new ways to bring capital to address water and wastewater needs, and I look at it fairly simplistically. You got the ability to do it through taxation of some form, whether it is indirect 

or direct, and then it is used by the federal government and the 

states to make things happen, or you use private capital, and the 

real answer is, you have got to use both. 

One encouragement I would have for the subcommittee is, anything that you do, do it in a way that pulls private capital in to 

a greater degree. If you go to TIFIA, the transportation, which is 

a very good model, one of the things when you go on that Web site, 

it says our fundamental purpose is to attract other sources of capital from private markets in order to leverage federal expenditures. 

So if we do not pool private capital, we might reduce cost but we 

have not done anything more. We have not necessarily addressed 

the infrastructure issue. 

Mr. SIMPSON. You mentioned the private partnerships are not— 

SRF funds are not available for them in about half the states. Restate that. 

Mr. STERBA. I think it is roughly half the states do not allow private utilities to make application for state revolving fund under the 

Clean Drinking Water Act. About half do. So, for example, two of 

the big states that we serve are Pennsylvania and New Jersey. 

They have a very robust, and they really think about it, particularly Pennsylvania, from an economic development side. But other 

states do not. 

Mr. SIMPSON. What is the reason those other states do not? 

Mr. STERBA. Well, it can be a lot. It could be that the private 

utilities in that state did not get in line early enough and so it has 

been taken up by other things. It could be that the state says, look, 

I only got so much, I am prioritizing things that are visible, I am 

prioritizing economic development, I am prioritizing roads, whatever the case may be that they are going to use that state revolving 

fund for. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
339 

Mr. SIMPSON. But I assume they have the state revolving fund 

for water systems that are publicly owned. 

Mr. STERBA. For the water systems, and that is where it is going, 

you can understand it. The political side says I am a mayor, I have 

a need, that is a private company, they should not get any, we need 

it. There is more than enough demand in the public market, in the 

public water market, to use those funds, so we do not want private 

water companies to get it. But the problem is, private water companies pay the same taxes that helped create the state revolving 

funds. Should they not have the same access? 

WATER INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT

Mr. SIMPSON. Well, and your goal is actually to deliver clean 

water. 

Mr. STERBA. Absolutely. 

Mr. SIMPSON. And that is what you are after. 

Mr. STERBA. A hundred percent. 

Mr. SIMPSON. And if you are a citizen out there, I really do not 

care whether it is done by the municipality or whether it is done 

by private, as long as I turn on my tap and the water comes out 

and it is clean and it is at a reasonable price, and we might have 

differences of opinion about what a reasonable price is, but one of 

the things I heard in the earlier testimony was that citizens, when 

you have private companies, did not like the price increases. I have 

never seen a community upgrade their water system where the 

prices did not go up. We get letters all the time about those things. 

Mr. STERBA. And this goes to what Ben was talking about in 

terms of the value of water, and helping customers understand better what the value of water is today, because today people do not 

pay for the molecule of water. They pay to clean it, they pay to deliver it, and in many instances, they are not paying the full cost 

of that. So it makes it very difficult when you are only replacing 

your investment as if it was going to last 250 years to enhance that 

reinvestment if you have only got rates that are recovering cost for 

over 250 years. 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Can I just chime in one basic point, and that is, 

there is plenty of room to advance public-private partnerships without ignoring the fundamental principle here, and that is that water 

is a basic human right. It is our most precious liquid asset but it 

is also a human right, and so the country, our national water policies really continue to be founded perhaps more than other countries in the world on this public ownership idea or on public accountability, and the magic place to go is always ensure that there 

is public trust and public accountability in water because it is not 

simply a commodity but find ways where the agents of delivering 

that water can bring new money to the table and new ideas, and 

I think that is something the committee should look at encouraging 

just like in Philadelphia, Commissioner Neukrug, the Natural Resources Defense Council, which is a member of ours, the U.S. 

Water Alliance, and others are really looking at and saying hey, 

they are tackling one of the most expensive infrastructure issues, 

and that is, stormwater around the country, sewer and water, and 

one way to avoid the costs of the public fisc is to bring in the private sector and to create—it could be fees, but if you do it in a way 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
340 

that provides market-based flexibility so that developers, their private money goes towards managing stormwater in a more effective 

way and they get credit for it, that fee is decreased because of some 

of the green infrastructure work they are doing that the agencies 

approve of. I think that is a really good model and it is one that 

we are seeing all across the country, communities between a rock 

and a hard place because of the water infrastructure, and 

stormwater is one of the biggest unfunded mandates that some 

communities face. They are looking for innovative approaches, and 

the private sector and land developers have a really important role 

to play. They have to be treated fairly too, but it is a perfect example where we have to move beyond the older model of, it has got 

to be publicly funded money because water is involved. 

Mr. ARNDT. If I could take the conversation one step further, I 

think your question in the prior session really went in the direction 

of what I want to say, and that is, if you look across the country, 

there are some 54,000 community water systems, many, many of 

them small, many of them do not have what we call the technical, 

managerial and financial capability to really be sustainable going 

forward. My organization has actually acquired 30 water and 

wastewater systems over the years. I am guessing Jeff’s number 

would dwarf mine. But we have integrated those systems into our 

core service area. We have upgraded service. We brought some financial discipline to the system, and I think without addressing 

that element, we kind of keep putting a band-aid on the problem 

and let the underlying situation persist, and so I think anything 

that can be done to incentivize the—allowing entities that can provide the service, be it a private entity or public entity, that they 

should be incentivized to essentially consolidate those systems that 

cannot survive going forward, and as a result, I think we will be 

able to better manage that investment need in front of us and also 

potentially reduce the costs that would otherwise be before us. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Well, it is interesting that if you look in the Teton 

Valley in Idaho, there are several small communities, I am talking 

real small communities that are spread out probably over a 20-mile 

valley, and it used to be that they would each have their wastewater treatment facility and stuff. Now they are looking at a common system and they are doing that more and more across southern Idaho and these areas, but you were going to say something, 

Thad? 

Mr. WILSON. To your point, Mr. Chairman, about the public-private partnerships potentially accessing SRF funds, that is something we have been exploring with a couple state agencies. Under 

the structure we envision, the municipality would continue to own 

the facility, or if we are building a new or replacement facility, they 

would actually own it, they would own title to it, they could access 

SRF funds and combine that with our private equity that we are 

bringing into that partnership, and it would be a way to leverage 

those SRF funds to go farther. 

Mr. SIMPSON. But in your situation, the municipality does not 

own the system is what you are talking about? 

Mr. WILSON. In the areas where we provide retail service to customers, we own the system. We are under regulated rates by the 

state commissions. We also do public-private partnerships where 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
341 

we operate systems for others. Most of those are operational agreements. Some of them are more of a lease arrangement, and that 

is where we run into the defeasance issue, etc. In that instance, we 

would not be the applicant to the state revolving fund because if 

it is going to be owned by the municipality, they are the applicant 

for the state revolving fund. It is the challenge of how you bring 

those two pieces together. 

One of the things you mentioned earlier, Mr. Chairman, which 

I am so glad you did, because like the one that Aurel raised, it is 

one of those that does not always get talked about, but it is the efficiency of capital spend. One of the things that just shocked me 

was, we recently did an analysis with a municipality. We just 

looked at supply chain, the cost of meters, pipes and vales, those 

kinds of basic, the fundamental building blocks of infrastructure for 

the water and wastewater industry. The difference between what 

they were paying for that equipment versus what it cost through 

our supply chain was about 30 percent. You would leverage that 

out, that is 30 percent more capital that could be available without 

doing anything other than getting more efficient. It is scale but it 

is also expertise. 

I come out of the energy world, and I have only been in the water 

space for two and a half years, but an enormously open roadmap 

for us is on applying technology in this industry. We have not done 

it. There is so much more than can be done from leak detection to 

ways to reduce the energy use. But that is very difficult to do at 

small scale and so this notion of how do we bring entities together 

is important. 

Mr. SIMPSON. It is. There are a lot of very interesting examples 

that are used. The amount of water we use, when you go into airports and you run your hand under it and the water runs for a 

minute, it is amazing how much water that saves. I read a study 

one time of how much water you would save if you turned off the 

tap while you were brushing your teeth. Being a dentist, that was 

always interesting to me. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Do you? 

Mr. SIMPSON. Actually, no, and the reason nobody does is because the individual savings to me is miniscule, but the savings to 

society as a whole would be large. That is the way things work. Ms. 

McCollum, go ahead. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Well, being the Girl Scout in the room then, I 

liked what you said about convenience. We do not look at the bigpicture cost. There is petroleum that went in there and the energy 

on so many different scales that all went in here. I get funny looks 

when I go with people and I am in a restaurant here, because in 

Minnesota, I mean, nobody ever asks if you want bottled water unless you are at a really high-end restaurant, and then they do not 

mean flat water, they mean sparkling and I go, no, I drink D.C. 

tap water and everybody kind of goes huh. So a lot of it is this false 

sense of somehow this is very great water because, Mr. Chairman, 

it is carefully blended from selected natural springs. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Exactly. 

FUTURE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Like a fine wine is blended. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
342 

I want to take this maybe up a couple more feet into the sky. 

I just left a defense briefing where we were talking about North Africa and Yemen. Big national security there: water. International 

security for us: water. So water comes down to, as you so eloquently said, a basic human right. And you touched on small cities 

and townships and then we went into the whole thing about states’ 

rights. And the League of Cities is here. I was on a city council, 

so you guys are near and dear. I was in the state legislature, city 

council, so I dealt with water on many different levels. So there is 

modernizing our systems, there is maintaining our systems, there 

is building new infrastructure, so there are different roles and different ways in which you kind of come in. And going to sewer separation, where you are really kind of going in and doing the heavy 

lifting, which is the new modernization of systems in some of our 

municipalities that can be 60, 100 years old. That is not cheap 

work no matter who does it. So if you could maybe kind of touch 

on that a little bit. 

And then you make money building projects. You also make 

money selling water. So let me give you a little story. Minnesota, 

water rich, right? Lake Superior down 4 feet, climate change. I 

have a good-sized lake which we prided ourselves—we like to do 

winter carnivals and do all kinds of crazy things when it is cold 

like fish on the ice and everything. The lake where the dock and 

the chair used to kind of be at the end of the table, now the water 

is here and the dock is where that chair is. So we had USGS, and 

thank you very much for this committee funding them and the 

good work that they do, and they said okay, there might be a little 

puncture in White Bear Lake. Yes, climate change is playing a factor in it because they looked at other lakes around. It is our reservoir. We are going through water faster than we ever thought we 

were going to go through it. So we have a metropolitan council and 

they are looking at it. Now cities are fighting over who goes to conservation first, who is most important. 

Where do you fit in? Where do you see your responsibility in 

maintaining these systems as to really talking about the ethic of 

how much water we use and using it efficiently, whether it is, you 

know, in airports or watering bans, because it would seem to me— 

and I was in the private sector most of my adult life in sales. It 

would seem to me for a lot of your business models, you made 

money by how much you pump out? What do we do to incentivize 

you as part of our solution here to reduce the amount of water we 

are wasting? 

Mr. NEUKRUG. That is a great question. I think we are doing it. 

I think it is a really exciting time to be in the water industry because there is so much innovation going on, so many new things 

that are happening with leak detection, water conservation, this 

new thing that we are calling stormwater conservation, managing 

the rainwater, and there is so much potential here, and the problem is, as we have been talking about all along, there is not enough 

money. In particular, there is not enough capital dollars. So we are 

all in this game of prioritizing how do we figure out what is the 

best way to spend that last dollar that we have, and Jeff, you 

talked about level of service. Right now, the level of service that 

is acceptable in the United States is that there will be one waterVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:45 Jul 20, 2013 Jkt 081687 PO 00000 Frm 00342 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A687P2.XXX A687P2

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
343 

main break every two minutes. That is the level of service that the 

United States is accepting. I am not sure if they would accept it 

if went to one break every minute. I do not know. We are kind of 

making those decisions for the United States because of the limitations of how much money we have. The same thing with boil-water 

notices. How many is too much? Occasionally you have them. In 

Philadelphia we have not had one—I do not think we ever had a 

boil-water notice but other cities have them every now and then. 

Is that okay? What about, you are talking about storage, if one of 

our reservoirs dropped and we did not have any water for two or 

three days? Is that acceptable? And what do you want us to pay 

in order to avoid that risk? 

So there are a lot of questions that we are all working on on a 

daily basis, thinking about how do we best manage this system 

with the amount of money we have, and for Philly, we were working on a $100-million-a-year capital budget. That is 5 years ago. 

Now we are up to $250 million a year. So we went from looking 

at $100 million a year and then a 5-year plan that is a half a billion dollars to looking at $250 million a year, and now we are looking at 25 years out, and that is a $10 billion program. So our whole 

perspective has changed, and it is not just Philadelphia, I think it 

is the entire industry is looking further out, understanding the 

issues. 

Asset management was brought up earlier, prioritizing our—you 

know, what are we going to do with our money, and, you know, I 

am here because I need some support from the federal government 

because right now I get very little. So most of every penny that I 

have, which is all the money that I have, is coming from my ratepayers, and that is fine. I think that is appropriate. But there is 

no way that I can raise the rates sufficiently to cover everything 

that I want to do and need to do. So I am making decisions and 

so is every utility manager in the country about what level of service is acceptable to America in 2013. We are not even considering 

what is acceptable in 2023. 

Mr. ARNDT. And I think Howard’s latter point goes to, given the 

fact that we do not have a bottomless bucket of funds to do everything we would like to do, a big part of what we are doing and 

growing annually is consumer education, customer education, so 

that they are better consumers of the water and they understand 

what goes into the service that they receive. I guess in many ways, 

I look at it somewhat differently than you characterize it. The 

water is the vehicle for the services that we provide in many ways, 

and it represents a relatively small cost if you just took the value 

of the raw material itself. But it has significant societal implications in terms of environmental issues and that sort of thing, and 

so our educational efforts are very heavily focused on youth education, really educating the consumers of the future or letting those 

kids go home and tell their parents they should not be letting the 

water run while they are brushing their teeth, and I think that is 

one of the things that we think is very, very important. 

Another piece of it is what we call full cost pricing, that what we 

charge for the service should be reflective of the full cost of providing that, and in many ways, it does not, and I think simple economic theory says that if you charge something that is reflective 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
344 

of its full cost, you will get better management and utilization of 

that resource or that asset, and I think that is one of the things 

where there has been this, we cannot raise our water rates because, and in the political arena, that rings true many times, and 

as a result, something gets chopped out of the water budget that 

is really important. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, could I ask a question? Could you set 

up a meter that would watch how much I am using to consume for 

my basic needs versus my lawn care? I mean, because if you are 

going to charge me, then based on my ability to pay, being a retired 

worker, you know. And then the other question, because we are 

going to wrap this up, is, where are you with working with—I just 

was out to Simon Properties Managers out in Maplewood, Minnesota. They have this big stormwater thing. They are watering 

their trees off of it. They are going to have less—because we have 

the frost, so they are going to have less potholes and all this other 

stuff because of what they are doing in their parking lot. And 

brown water technology. When you go in, are you a full-service provider? Can you lay everything out? Do you work with the other 

contractors on how to look at a big picture or do you just come in 

and look at this part of the picture? 

Mr. STERBA. You have raised a very critical issue. It is the notion 

of thinking about one water. This industry has a tendency to think 

about drinking water, wastewater, stormwater, or traditionally. 

More and more, though, you are finding thinking about one water. 

So you think about—I know Howard is doing a lot of things on how 

do you get property owners to take the responsibility for the 

amount of runoff so that water is used and not flooding the sewer 

system. We do—in New York City, we have six high-rise buildings 

where we do 100 percent reuse. The city of Fillmore, California, we 

have a-million-gallon-a-day reuse system so we are taking brown 

water, if you will, and we use it for irrigation, for flush, for cooling 

purposes. 

You also raised an issue, though, that is a troubling one for the 

industry, which is this notion that—as I said, we serve all across 

the country, so if you go to California, our average use per customer is about 110, 115 gallons a day. You go to New Jersey, it is 

300-plus gallons a day. Why? Well, because Californians understand water is scarce. New Jersey does not have that mindset yet. 

They have not realized what is changing in the marketplace and 

what is going to happen to water. But what we are seeing across 

our systems is a decline in use per customer. So as people use less 

water, what happens, and this is true whether you are a public 

company like we are, a private company that is publicly traded or 

you are a municipality, you have rates that are not going to recover 

your costs because you are 80 percent fixed costs, 20 percent variable, but your revenues are 20 percent fixed, 80 percent variable. 

So you will always—you are in this catch-up mode. That is—you 

know, we have got to find a way, and this is probably not legislatively, but it is regulatorily-wise or it is imposing some mandates 

potentially for funding where you build the kind of appropriate 

price structures so that you incentivize efficiency as oppose to penalize efficiency. And then you can do things like provide an 

amount of water at a fixed price that is what people need to live 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
345 

on, but if they choose to take 20-minute showers or they choose to 

have ultra-green lawns, whatever the case may be, where they do 

something more, well, then they pay for that. 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Our organization, which is not a trade association, we are a national—it is like a think tank, convener of collaborations, policy thinkers and doers. We were formed because of the 

need for a one-water, integrated water holistic approach. The question you asked about sewer separation is a perfect example of how 

all of us need to work together, the regulators, the environmental 

community, the utilities, the private sector, to not back away from 

the goals for, in this case, the Clean Water Act, but to find ways 

that recognize a community may not have the money and the time 

or the patience to do sewer separation to deal with the sewer overflow problem, they can come at it in different ways, and green infrastructure, a combination of different technologies and strategies 

are very promising, and it can work but it requires some time and 

research and also a track record, and across the country in communities, we are seeing a willingness to do something different. It 

may not be sewer separation but it can be a combination of green 

infrastructure practices with regular check-ins by the regulators so 

that you are making progress and doing it in a more cost-effective 

way. And it all gets to the basic point that water, we take it for 

granted and everybody says that but we do not really do much 

about that, and great ways to work on that are to be able to advance the smart technologies that monitor. So there really are— 

there are companies, there are utilities that can provide their customers with smartphones where they get weekly or a monthly notice that oh, they are exceeding a certain amount in their bill, they 

may want to check on how they are consuming that water, or they 

can pay just to have the water—in Arlington County, for instance, 

you can pay to get a bill metered just on water that you are using 

for outdoor irrigation. And businesses that are springing forth, and 

it is not just through an EPA water sense program but through 

other efforts, are developing ways to respect the fact that every 

drop counts and you can save money with new technology, weather-based sensors, and it is not just a technology for arid, waterscarce regions. I mean, that is the value in water. But thanks for 

asking the question. 

Mr. SIMPSON. I really did not expect this hearing to go on for two 

and a half hours, but it is obviously a very important subject. It 

is one that we take seriously and hopefully the Transportation 

Committee that oversees the Clean Water Act takes very seriously, 

and I am hopeful that we will get something done in this Congress 

to address this pressing problem that we have of dealing with the 

infrastructure, which will also help me with my budget and a few 

other things, but it is something that we have got to do if we are 

going to make the most of limited resources that we have. 

I thank all of you for being here today and I appreciate your testimony very much. Thank you. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
346 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 410 here 81687A.227
347 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 411 here 81687A.228
348 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 412 here 81687A.229
349 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 413 here 81687A.230
350 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 414 here 81687A.231
351 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 415 here 81687A.232
352 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 416 here 81687A.233
353 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 417 here 81687A.234
354 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 418 here 81687A.235
355 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 419 here 81687A.236
356 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 420 here 81687A.237
357 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 421 here 81687A.238
358 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 422 here 81687A.239
359 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 423 here 81687A.240
360 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 424 here 81687A.241
361 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 425 here 81687A.242
362 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 426 here 81687A.243
363 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 427 here 81687A.244
364 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 428 here 81687A.245
365 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 429 here 81687A.246
366 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 430 here 81687A.247
367 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 431 here 81687A.248
368 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 432 here 81687A.249
369 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 433 here 81687A.250
370 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 434 here 81687A.251
371 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 435 here 81687A.252
372 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 436 here 81687A.253
373 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 437 here 81687A.254
374 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 438 here 81687A.255
375 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 439 here 81687A.256
376 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 440 here 81687A.257
377 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 441 here 81687A.258
378 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 442 here 81687A.259
379 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 443 here 81687A.260
380 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 444 here 81687A.261
381 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 445 here 81687A.262
382 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 446 here 81687A.263
383 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 447 here 81687A.264
384 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 448 here 81687A.265
385 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 449 here 81687A.266
386 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 450 here 81687A.267
387 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 451 here 81687A.268
388 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 452 here 81687A.269
389 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 453 here 81687A.270
390 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 454 here 81687A.271
391 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 455 here 81687A.272
392 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 456 here 81687A.273
393 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 457 here 81687A.274
394 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 458 here 81687A.275
395 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 459 here 81687A.276
396 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 460 here 81687A.277
397 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 461 here 81687A.278
398 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 462 here 81687A.279
399 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 463 here 81687A.280
400 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 464 here 81687A.281
401 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 465 here 81687A.282
402 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 466 here 81687A.283
403 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 467 here 81687A.284
404 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 468/600 here 81687A.285
(405) 

TUESDAY, MARCH 19, 2013. 

OVERSIGHT OF INDIAN HEALTH 

WITNESSES 

YVETTE ROUBIDEAUX, DIRECTOR, INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE 

REX LEE JIM, VICE PRESIDENT, NAVAJO NATION, TREASURER AND 

NAVAJO AREA REPRESENTATIVE, NATIONAL INDIAN HEALTH 

BOARD OF DIRECTORS, ON BEHALF OF NATIONAL INDIAN HEALTH 

BOARD 

D’SHANE BARNETT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF 

URBAN INDIAN HEALTH 

KELLY MOORE, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, CENTERS FOR AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE HEALTH, COLORADO SCHOOL OF PUBLIC 

HEALTH, UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER, ON BEHALF OF 

FRIENDS OF INDIAN HEALTH 

HENRY FIELDS, PROFESSOR AND CHAIR, DIVISION OF 

ORTHODONTICS, COLLEGE OF DENTISTRY, OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, ON BEHALF OF AMERICAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION 

OPENING REMARKS OF CHAIRMAN SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. The hearing will come to order. 

Good afternoon and welcome to this oversight hearing on Indian 

health. In 2010, the United States enacted into law the following 

policy: ‘‘A major national goal of the United States is to provide the 

resources, processes, and structure that will enable Indian tribes 

and tribal members to obtain the quality and quantity of 

healthcare services and opportunities that will eradicate the health 

disparities between Indians and the general population of the 

United States.’’ Let me say that again. ‘‘A major national goal of 

the United States is to provide the resources, processes, and structure that will enable Indian tribes and tribal members to obtain 

the quantity and quality of healthcare services and opportunities 

that will eradicate the health disparities between Indians and the 

general population of the United States.’’ 

A few of those disparities are reflected in these sobering statistics provided by the National Congress of American Indians. Native 

people die at higher rates than other Americans from tuberculosis, 

500 percent; alcoholism, 514 percent; diabetes, 177 percent; injuries, 140 percent; homicide, 92 percent; and suicides, 82 percent. 

This subcommittee has, over the past several years, made funding for Indian Health a higher priority. In fact, from 2000 to 2012 

under both Republican and Democratic leadership, funding for the 

Indian Health Service went from 2.4 billion to nearly 4.4 billion before sequestration. No doubt some of that increase was an attempt 

to keep pace with the nationwide problem of rising medical care 

costs, but my hope is that the rest of the increases has made a 

positive difference in people’s lives. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
406 

So the fiscal year 2014 budget delay provides us with this opportunity today to step back and ask the following questions in support of the national goal I stated at the outset: has the increased 

funding made a measurable difference in the health of American 

Indians and Alaska natives, and why? And where do we go from 

here in this constrained fiscal environment? 

We are pleased today to be joined by two panels of experts. Our 

first panelist will be Dr. Yvette Roubideaux, Director of the Indian 

Health Service. After Dr. Roubideaux testifies, we will have a 

round of questions from the subcommittee. Then, we will invite up 

our second panel, which includes Mr. Rex Lee Jim, Vice President 

of the Navajo Nation, testifying on behalf of the National Indian 

Health Board; Mr. D’Shane Barnett, Executive Director of the National Council of Urban Indian Health; Dr. Kelly Moore, Associate 

Professor at the Centers for American Indian and Alaska Native 

Health at the University of Colorado, testifying on behalf of the 

Friends of Indian Health; and Dr. Henry Fields, Professor at the 

College of Dentistry at the Ohio State University, testifying on behalf of the American Dental Association. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Let me also take this moment to welcome our distinguished guests in the audience and the many tribes and tribal 

organizations around the country who are submitting written testimony for the record. Thank you all for your commitment and your 

assistance in helping us today. I will say that we are expected to 

have votes at about 2:15, so our anticipation is that we hope we 

will get through with Dr. Roubideaux so you do not have to hang 

around if you do not want to. If you want to listen to the other 

panel, that is fine, but then we will probably go vote and then have 

the second panel up as soon as we get back from this first series 

of votes, which should not take too long. 

I would like to turn to my ranking member, who is at a luncheon 

that is not quite over yet, but he will be here as soon as he can 

make it. And then you have an opening statement? 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. I am excited to get going, sir. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Okay. Mr. Moran will provide his opening statement when he gets here. Dr. Roubideaux, the floor to you. 

Dr. ROUBIDEAUX. Thank you. I am just making sure that the 

microphone is on. You are good? Push the button. You can hear me 

now? 

Mr. SIMPSON. Yes. 

Dr. ROUBIDEAUX. Perfect. Well, good morning. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Would you like to have your opening statement 

now or—— 

Mr. MORAN. Apparently you are not so Irish there or something. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Seriously, so let’s not go there. 

Mr. MORAN. I will not go there. Do you want a cookie? 

Mr. SIMPSON. I have two here. You will be off the hook on your 

side of the table. 

OPENING REMARKS OF MR. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Actually, I have such a fine opening statement, Doctor. I know you would want me to share it. We do want to thank 

you for coming to the subcommittee oversight hearing today. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
407 

And I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving us the opportunity to 

say a couple words. 

We, I think, recognize that a person’s greatest asset oftentimes 

is their state of health because if you do not have your health, 

there is not much that you can enjoy in life. And the fact is that 

too many Native Americans’ health status is seriously impaired in 

category after category. The Native Americans suffer sickness and 

disease at far greater rates than other Americans, and that is what 

Chairman Simpson noted in his address. And Native Americans die 

at higher rates than other Americans. 

The statistics you quoted, Mr. Chairman, are just stunning. 

Whether it be alcoholism, diabetes, injuries, homicides, suicide, it 

is something that we have to address, and this is the best way to 

address it. Native Americans’ life expectancy is still 4 years less 

than Americans of any other race, and as bad as those statistics 

are, though, I want to recognize the terrific work that is done by 

the Indian Health Service. Over the last 50 years, Indian Health 

Service has made a real difference in the lives of Native Americans, 

particularly in terms of high infant mortality and deaths from disease. But we still have many challenges, especially the epidemic of 

diabetes. We recognize that there are larger societal issues, but 

poverty, education, rural isolation all comes together to present 

special challenges for Indians’ health. 

I do appreciate the bipartisan support that Indian Health has 

had on this subcommittee. I think it should be recognized because 

it is real and substantial and meaningful. But it is becoming more 

and more difficult. This bill proportionately was cut more than any 

other bill by the Senate, and that is very troubling. A 5 percent cut 

in Indian health programs is not what the American taxpayer 

would want done; it is certainly not what this subcommittee wants 

to see. The situation is going to continue to be very difficult, but 

this subcommittee is committed to doing everything we can to advance the state of Indians’ health and to support you in your efforts, Dr. Roubideaux. So I thank you very much. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Dr. Roubideaux. 

OPENING REMARKS OF DR. YVETTE ROUBIDEAUX

Dr. ROUBIDEAUX. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman and members 

of the subcommittee. My name is Dr. Yvette Roubideaux. I am the 

director of the Indian Health Service. I am really pleased to have 

the opportunity to testify on the accomplishments of the Indian 

Health Service. 

Well, over the past few years, we have been working to change 

and improve the Indian Health Service. And I want to thank you 

so much for our progress on appropriations. It has been really critical to our progress in terms of accomplishing our agency priorities 

and improvements. Since 2008, the IHS appropriations have increased by 29 percent, which is making a substantial difference in 

the quality and quantity of healthcare we are able to provide, 

which in the end helps us reduce health disparities in the communities we serve. 

For example, Contract Health Service funding, which is how we 

pay for referrals to the private sector, has increased 46 percent 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
408 

since 2008, and 4 years ago, only four federal programs were funding beyond Medical Priority 1, which is ‘‘life or limb’’ for referrals. 

Now, almost half of all federal Contract Health Service programs 

are funding referrals beyond Medical Priority 1. This is significant 

because it means more patients are accessing healthcare services 

that they need, including preventive services like mammograms 

and colonoscopies. The increases in Contract Health Service funding also means that the IHS Catastrophic Health Emergency Part, 

or CHEF fund, which used to run out of funding for high-cost cases 

reimbursement in June, is now able to reimburse cases all the way 

until August. So although IHS faces uncertainty about its funding 

level for fiscal year 2013, we are committed to continuing our efforts to change and improve the Indian Health Service. 

While IHS has made considerable progress in addressing our 

agency priorities and reforms, our first priority is to renew and 

strengthen our partnership with tribes, and that is based on our 

belief that really the only way that we can improve the health of 

our communities is to work in partnership with them. Over the 

past few years, we have made several improvements that have resulted in better decision-making and more effective progress on our 

agency reforms. 

For example, Tribal Consultation is helping us improve our Contract Health Service program, the business of it and our referral 

process. Tribal Consultation is also helping us improve coordination of care for veterans through implementation of our 2010 updated MOU and the recently signed IHS-VA National Reimbursement Agreement. 

Our second agency priority is to bring reform to the Indian 

Health Service, and this year, the IHS is focused on planning for 

implementation of the Affordable Care Act health insurance exchanges and Medicaid expansion in 2014, and we continue to make 

progress on implementation of the reauthorization of the Indian 

Health Care Improvement Act. 

IHS is also making progress on our internal IHS reform efforts, 

including organizational and administrative reforms, improved 

budget planning, financial management, human resources, performance management, and more consistent business practices 

throughout the Agency. While IHS has responded with corrective 

actions for the findings from the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs investigation of the Aberdeen area, we have since conducted 

reviews of all 12 areas and are implementing corrective actions as 

well. 

Our third agency priority is to improve the quality of and access 

to care. We have focused our efforts on a number of customer service and quality improvement strategies over the last few years, including our Improving Patient Care program, which establishes a 

patient-centered medical home model within the Indian Health 

System. 

In 2011, the Indian Health Service successfully met all of its national Government Performance and Results Act, or GPRA, performance clinical indicators, and this is an accomplishment that 

was never before achieved in IHS. And it is really due to a systemwide focus on improvement and also increased access to care from 

the recent funding increases. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
409 

For example, receipt of mammograms by women for many years 

was in the low- to mid-40 percent range, and by fiscal year 2012, 

it has increased to over 50 percent. 

So our final agency priority is to ensure that our work is transparent, accountable, fair, and inclusive. And this includes a focus 

on system-wide accountability for progress on agency reform efforts. 

So in summary, we are making progress and changing and improving the Indian Health Service. And thank you so much for your 

support and your partnership. It has really been essential to our 

progress thus far. And although we are in a time of uncertainty regarding resources and we clearly have much more to do, the work 

of the past few years has clearly established that by working together, our efforts can change and improve the Indian Health Service. And that helps us ensure that our American Indian and Alaska 

Native patients and communities receive the quality healthcare 

that they need and they deserve. 

Thank you. And I am happy to answer questions. 

[The statement of Yvette Roubideaux follows:] 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
410 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 614 81687B.001
411 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 615 81687B.002
412 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 616 81687B.003
413 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 617 81687B.004
414 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 618 81687B.005
415 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 619 81687B.006
416 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 620 81687B.007
417 

CHEF AND CHS

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, Dr. Roubideaux. I appreciate you being 

here today and I appreciate the work that you are doing and have 

done with us trying to address this disparity. 

You mentioned during your testimony that the old saying in Indian Country used to be do not get sick after June. You now say 

that you can get sick clear up until August. What happens in September? 

Dr. ROUBIDEAUX. Well, there are two things. So there is the overall budget for Contract Health Service where we make referrals, 

and then there is this pot of money called the Catastrophic Health 

Emergency Fund. That is where we reimburse facilities for the 

costs of high-cost cases after they meet a certain threshold. That 

money is sort of a first-come, first-served, so it actually runs out 

when it runs out. And so what we are saying is it is now running 

out in August instead of June. Those cases have still been paid for; 

it is just that we are not reimbursing them. But if we reimburse 

them through this fund, that means those resources can be used 

for other referrals. 

Mr. SIMPSON. So tribes are having to use their own resources to 

pay for those medical costs rather than being reimbursed? 

Dr. ROUBIDEAUX. Their Contract Health Service fund. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Yes. 

Dr. ROUBIDEAUX. Yes, the overall pot of funds. The phrase do not 

get sick after June has been a very effective advocacy tool and way 

to describe the fact that for Contract Health Service, the way that 

we pay for referrals, we have an incredible shortfall in the amount 

of funding that is available for the referrals. So in the past, they 

used to just use it up and then it would run out. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Yes. 

Dr. ROUBIDEAUX. What we have done is we have implemented 

improvements in the way we manage the Contract Health Service 

program so that it is better apportioned throughout the year and 

that there are weekly meetings of the Contract Health Service program to look at medical priorities for approvals of referrals. 

So the budget is clear. Even though we are doing that and the 

money is being apportioned out throughout the entire year, there 

is still significant need. Our current Contract Health Service budget is around $800 million. The actual need related to denied and 

deferred services is almost $1 billion above that. 

Mr. SIMPSON. We figured out a way to separate the terms contract support costs and Contract Healthcare Services so that we 

can understand which we are talking about? We have mentioned 

that before that we oftentimes get them confused here. 

Dr. ROUBIDEAUX. Yes. Contract Health Services, how we pay for 

referrals, contract support costs is the administrative costs related 

to contracts to tribes. I cannot reveal anything about the 2014 

President’s budget, but I can say that we took your advice and are 

changing the name to Purchased and Referred Care. We are proposing that in our budget. So Purchased and Referred Care does 

better reflect that this funding goes to referrals. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
418 

GPRA

Mr. SIMPSON. Probably the thing that we rely on most is a measure of how well we are doing at addressing this—I do not want to 

say backlog—but this need that exists in meeting our obligations, 

and as the statute says that I read earlier, making sure we address 

this disparity. I mean I read the statistics of the differences between the Indian population and all other Americans based on pure 

numbers. How are we doing? I mean we have been at this effort 

for some time and trying to address this disparity. It seems to still 

exist. What measures are we using to try to reduce them? 

Dr. ROUBIDEAUX. Well, the Indian Health Service does do regular 

surveillance on a number of things. The ultimate outcome is of 

course reducing the disparities in mortality or death rates. And we 

can see over time over the course of the Indian Health Service 

being in place, as Representative Moran said, we can see that mortality is decreasing in a number of areas. The areas where we see 

mortality decreasing include alcohol deaths, diabetes deaths, unintentional injuries, homicide, and tuberculosis. But you are right. 

American Indians, Alaska Natives still do suffer significant health 

disparities and the quality of care. Alcohol mortality is still 6.1 

times greater, diabetes is still 2.8 times greater, and unintentional 

injuries are still 2.4 times greater. Those are in sort of the longterm health outcomes. 

The way for us to prove that as a healthcare system is to improve access to quality healthcare. And that is where we really see 

some of the more short-term progress that will lead to long-term 

progress. I mentioned how we, for the first time, met all of our 

GPRA indicators, which measure the quality of care and the access 

to care that we provide. 

When you look at all of the GPRA indicators, we can show significant improvements in, for example, access to dental services has 

increased 15.2 percent since 2008, sealants placed has increased 

22.6 percent, topical fluoride patients have increased 40 percent, 

mammograms have increased 15.3 percent, colorectal cancer 

screening has increased 59 percent, tobacco cessation has increased 

67.6 percent, and so on. We can provide you a full chart of what 

the increases have been over the last 4 years. But it is really clear 

that in order to address those long-term health disparities, we have 

to provide better access to care in our system, and the resources 

and funding increases in the past few years are definitely giving 

us a great start in doing that. 

Mr. SIMPSON. One of the challenges we had—and it is true across 

all America I suspect—is—and maybe it is more emphasized within 

Indian Country, you go to some places, as we did when we went 

to Oklahoma and some other places, they are doing very well in 

terms of the healthcare services they are providing, facilities that 

they are building, and so forth. In other parts of Indian Country, 

it is almost the dark ages. How do we decrease this disparity, not 

just between Native Americans and the rest of the American population, but the disparity within Indian tribes? 

Dr. ROUBIDEAUX. Well, what we need to do is make sure that 

when we get more resources for the system, we make sure that 

those resources benefit all of our patients, whether they are served 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
419 

by IHS-direct programs, whether they are served by tribally managed programs, or served by Urban Indian Health programs. And 

looking at tracking trends, monitoring performance, looking at access to care, and making sure that we are consulting with all of the 

tribes in the 12 IHS areas to make sure what their priorities is 

helping us do better at improving the quality of care, access to 

care, and ultimately to reduce those disparities. 

UNFILED POSITIONS

Mr. SIMPSON. How are we doing filling the unfilled positions that 

you have, whether they are doctors or dentists or other professionals? 

Dr. ROUBIDEAUX. Well, we have always had a challenge with vacancy rates, especially with clinical providers and physicians, and 

we are facing greater challenge with a looming shortage of primary 

care doctors. But what we have been doing are a number of reforms. One is the overall agency reform. When I was first director, 

we surveyed all of our providers, all of our staff, and asked them 

what they wanted to see, and I thought they wanted to see more 

improvements in clinical care. And really what they wanted is the 

organization to function better. And so that is why we have had 

such a focus on improving business and administrative processes, 

accountability, performance, and communication, and so want to 

create a better environment within which people can work. We also 

continue to use recruitment and retention bonuses. We have our 

loan repayment programs, scholarship program. We have worked 

with HRSA on getting National Health Service Corps scholars for 

loan repayment and scholarship placed in our system. 

And overall, one of the most exciting things that we have is our 

Improving Patient Care program, which is changing our care to a 

more team-based care that spreads the work to the highest level 

of each of the providers so that the doctor does not become completely overwhelmed because there are other members of the team 

that can do other parts of the care. And then trying to make the 

improvements and get more modern equipment and really try to 

find ways to improve the working conditions that people live in—— 

Mr. SIMPSON. Are those vacancy rates going down? 

Dr. ROUBIDEAUX. Yes. We actually are seeing some improvements. You may remember the vacancy rates for dental were over 

30 percent several years ago. They are now around 10 percent. 

There are improvements in a number of the other provider vacancies, but some of them we still struggle with, and physicians are 

always going to be an area where we really need to work harder. 

But the use of advanced practice nurses, physician assistants, and 

again, reorganizing the way we provide care will make sure that 

we use those providers more efficiently and that we do not overload 

them so that they get burned out. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Moran. 

Mr. MORAN. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate it. That printer 

must have put that nametag together in a mirror. 

Dr. ROUBIDEAUX. I know. I just noticed that. 

Mr. MORAN. Did you notice that? 

Dr. ROUBIDEAUX. Roudibeaux. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
420 

WATER SANITATION

Mr. MORAN. We had an oversight hearing on water sanitation 

systems last year. That does contribute to some of the disease 

issues we have had to deal with. Have we made any progress in 

that regard, Dr. Roubideaux? 

Dr. ROUBIDEAUX. Well, we are doing what we can to make 

progress on sanitation facility construction, and the Recovery Act 

definitely did help with giving us $63 million more, and EPA also 

gave us $90 million more. So we were able to work on the backlog 

of sanitation projects that is there. The estimate of the Sanitation 

Deficiency System that updated the need to serve existing homes 

in 2011 was 3.1 billion, and then in 2012, it had gone down to 2.8 

billion. But in terms of what is economically feasible, that has gone 

up a little to 1.6 billion. There is just an enormous, enormous burden of need for water and the sewage disposal and solid waste disposal facilities in our new and existing homes. So with that incredible need of 2.8 billion in 2012, there is clearly still more to do. But 

it is clear that more resources do help us make progress. 

HEALTH EDUCATION AT RESERVATION SCHOOLS

Mr. MORAN. Thank you. A number of the illnesses, diseases that 

we experience the highest rates of are what are called behaviorally 

related problems, are you working with the school systems on reservations in terms of healthcare diets and nutrition counseling? 

Dr. ROUBIDEAUX. We are. And that is mostly through the resources we have received through the Special Diabetes Program for 

Indians. I know many of those programs that provide diabetes prevention and treatment services do outreach and work with the local 

schools and try to help with education on nutrition. We also have 

our public health nurses who can go out to the schools and do education, as well as our Nutrition and Health Education staff. So we 

do do some outreach. It is clear we could do more, and that is why 

I was pleased to have already met twice with Assistant Secretary 

Kevin Washburn over at the Department of Interior, and I hope to 

have more meetings to talk with him about how we can do further 

collaboration on the portfolio that he has that includes schools. 

VETERANS AFFAIRS

Mr. MORAN. I hope so. The Department of Veterans Affairs and 

the Department of Defense are supposed to be sharing some of 

their medical facilities with IHS, and there are some issues with 

regard to reimbursement for the care of Native American veterans. 

How are we progressing on that? 

Dr. ROUBIDEAUX. Well, we actually are making progress in terms 

of trying to improve the coordination of care for American Indian/ 

Alaska Native veterans who are eligible for both IHS and the VA. 

And in 2010 I signed an updated Memorandum of Understanding 

with the VA that is working to improve coordination of services. 

We have a number of work groups at the national level that are 

working on trying to improve coordination in a number of areas, including sharing information, quality of care, IT systems, telehealth, 

and so on. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
421 

And in terms of reimbursement, we have been very fortunate 

that the Indian Health Care Improvement Act did include Section 

405 that allows that the VA reimburse IHS. And on December 5, 

we were able to sign our National Reimbursement Agreement with 

the VA that allows the VA to reimburse IHS for direct care services 

for eligible American Indian/Alaska Native veterans at a rate that 

helps our facilities and was requested by tribes. 

And so we are implementing that now in 10 federal sites. We are 

also implementing it in tribal sites. Alaska, of course, has been implementing it since August as well. And I believe the first federal 

site has already set up the billing and sent the first bill. So I think 

we are making progress there. 

The issue of sharing facilities is something that we have a couple 

of examples of in our communities, and we hope to do more of that. 

Mr. MORAN. Very good. And lastly and very quickly, the chairman mentioned that the rate of death for alcoholism is over 500 

percent greater among Native Americans. Are those statistics any 

better this year? 

Dr. ROUBIDEAUX. Those statistics over time are better, but there 

is still a significant disparity. And so we are focusing our alcohol 

and substance abuse funding to try to continue to address that 

with mostly tribal- and community-based programs. 

Mr. MORAN. Thank you, Dr. Roubideaux. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Calvert. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

GENETICS AND DISEASE

Just on a point that Mr. Moran brought up on some of the lifestyle diseases, has there ever been a study also whether there is 

any genetic predisposition to certain diseases more in the native 

population than in other populations? 

Dr. ROUBIDEAUX. Well, it is clear that we need more research in 

that area. We know from prevalence studies, studies of the rates 

of diseases, that certain diseases occur more frequently in American Indians and Alaska Natives, but that—— 

Mr. CALVERT. But it seems like diabetes is—— 

Dr. ROUBIDEAUX. Diabetes is actually one of the most notable 

where we see some of the highest rates in the world. And the epidemic of diabetes that is hitting America now hit American Indians 

and Alaska Natives in the 1970s. And that is why we have had 

programs since then to try and address that epidemic. 

YRTC IN CALIFORNIA

Mr. CALVERT. All right. My primary question is about the tribes 

in California that waited 4 years for the construction of their Youth 

Regional Treatment Centers mandated by the Indian Health Care 

Improvement Act, and with the development of these centers that 

have been finally initiated, it is important that the work continues. 

And I just wanted to see if you could assure the Committee that 

the centers will remain a priority and these facilities, their construction budgets and so forth, will not be delayed, and whether or 

not sequestration may affect your plan to move forward on these 

Youth Regional Treatment Centers. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
422 

Dr. ROUBIDEAUX. Well, certainly the California tribes have made 

it very clear that the Regional Youth Treatment Centers, both in 

the southern and northern California, are a top priority, and that 

is what we have been working on over the past couple of years. We 

already have the land for the southern YRTC, and the design. We 

got the funding for the design in the 2012 budget. And the design 

of the southern YRTC will be completed by the end of this year. 

And so that would make it perfectly ready for construction funding 

in the following year. And $15.5 million is needed to complete the 

southern YRTC. The northern YRTC we have just purchased the 

land and just got control of that. And so we are looking forward 

to requesting the funding for design and construction in future 

budgets. 

Mr. CALVERT. Okay. Good. Thank you. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Ms. McCollum. 

FORWARD FUNDING AND SEQUESTRATION

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

The VA, it took them a long time, but they finally got forwardfunded with their medical costs. That would help with all of the 

problems that we have because we have underfunded for contract, 

but in light of what is going on with sequestration and some other 

things, it might have provided some relief. So if you could maybe 

talk about forward-funding, if there has been any discussion with 

the Obama Administration about moving forward with that. I think 

it is pretty difficult with the scenario that we are facing right now, 

but I think it is something that the VA talked about for years and 

years and years before they got it. The sequestration is going to take $220 million from IHS, and I 

think for many of us, we were quite surprised. We thought in the 

sequestration, because Medicare/Medicaid were kind of roped off, 

fenced off, and protected, I think there was a lot of assumptions 

that we took care of the most vulnerable populations when clearly 

we did not. Not only did we not take care of a very vulnerable population in sequestration, but now, they are going to be facing some 

cuts after this committee and other Members of Congress worked 

extraordinarily hard to raise things up. 

Has there been any discussion about what we need to do at the 

Executive Branch? Because some of us have spoken here of trying 

to find the money to put Native American healthcare system at 

least held at, you know, not in harm’s way the way Medicaid and 

Medicare have been. 

Dr. ROUBIDEAUX. Well, it is clear, as you say, sequestration is a 

devastating impact for the Indian Health Service. The cut, after 

the fiscal cliff deal, it looks like it is going to be about 5 percent, 

which is still 220 million, as you have said, which is very significant. And we have estimated that there will be 3,000 fewer inpatient admissions and 804,000 fewer outpatient visits. 

And the thing about the law is that it mandates every program, 

project, and activity be reduced, so there is a limited ability to protect priorities. So even if the Administration wanted to protect the 

Indian Health Service, the law, as it is written right now, would 

not do that. We are grateful for working with Congress and hoping 

to find a solution to larger budget deficit issue so that we can miniVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:45 Jul 20, 2013 Jkt 081687 PO 00000 Frm 00422 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A687P2.XXX A687P2

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
423 

mize the impact or avoid sequestration. But it is really clear and 

we are really interested in hearing options and solutions to try to 

help us make sure that we can minimize the impact and also continue the progress that we have made. 

What I am concerned about is we have made so much progress 

and I certainly hope it does not take us further backwards with the 

sequestration that we are facing. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, in the Recovery Act, which passed— 

and I realize that that was controversial amongst us, you know, 

passing it and what it achieved and what it did not achieve, but 

there was an unintended consequence of Indian schools being left 

out because they were and the Department of Education. Now, we 

had what we thought was a rope-off, a fence-off for the most vulnerable Americans in the sequester with what was accounted for 

in Medicaid and Medicare. And once again, Native Americans were 

left out. So I think we have a real problem. As these grand bargains and deals are put through, I think one of the boxes that we 

are all going to have to ask are checked off by our colleagues and 

by the Administration is: and how are the Indian children and elders doing? 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Cole. 

IHS FUNDING COMPARISON CHART AND CSC

Mr. COLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Good to see you again, Doctor. First, a request. You mentioned 

you could get us that improvement chart we went down. I would 

really like to get a copy of that. And a couple of years ago—and 

I have used this to great effect since then—you produced a chart 

that just, in terms of dollar amounts, went through Native Americans, average American, veterans, Medicare recipients, and it was 

very striking about where Native Americans ranked. And so if you 

have an updated version of that, I would love to get a copy of that. 

I was able to wave it around a Budget Committee meeting to some 

effect recently, so it is a great piece of ammunition to have. 

Let me ask you this: obviously, this committee—and you referenced it in your testimony—has put a lot of emphasis on contract 

support costs. And we had made some progress. So far in fiscal 

year 2013, have you been able to fully fund contract support and 

can you tell us whether or not you will be requesting full funding 

in fiscal year 2014? 

Dr. ROUBIDEAUX. Well, I am unfortunately not able to talk about 

the fiscal year 2014. 

Mr. COLE. Do you want to give us a hint? 

Dr. ROUBIDEAUX. I am unable to tell you what we are doing, but 

we are certainly interested in working with Congress on this very 

important issue that I know is a priority for tribes. 

Mr. COLE. Okay. Well, how are we doing in ’13 to this point in 

terms of fully funding? 

Dr. ROUBIDEAUX. Well, the ’13 appropriation is not complete, so 

I am not sure what the outcome will be. I know that the actual 

need in 2013, if the President’s budget for 2013 was implemented, 

which it does not look like now, but would be $70 to $80 million. 

And so the need is still great for contract support costs and we are 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
424 

still interested in working with all of you to try to address that, 

especially since the Supreme Court decision. 

Mr. COLE. Okay. Yes, absolutely. Let me ask you this: you might 

enlighten us a little bit because I think you would probably be better informed. We chatted a little bit about this. I know you are 

going to get at least some money it looks like in the Senate CR, 

not nearly enough, but can you give us a quick overview of what 

you think is developing through the CR that might assist you in 

the sequester process? 

Dr. ROUBIDEAUX. Well, I have heard that the Senate version of 

the CR, while it does include a rescission and sequestration, may 

include an increase of $53 million for new staff for facilities, and 

these would be facilities we are constructing or are being constructed by tribes through the Joint Venture Project. And once 

their construction is done, IHS has agreed to request the staffing 

from Congress, so it is considered a commitment. And so we have 

made that request and we do not know the final outcome of the 

2013 budget, but I know that all of those tribes and all of those 

facilities that are waiting for that staffing funding really need it 

and it would help us get those facilities fully open in providing the 

healthcare services that the communities need. 

JOINT VENTURE

Mr. COLE. Last question I know because we are very limited in 

time and a point first. Chairman, you raised the difference between 

really joint venture tribes in effect and, you know, tribes that are 

getting their services directly from IHS, and that is a huge difference, as you know. I mean some tribes have revenue streams 

they can put additional money on top of and actually can deal with 

the sequester a little bit better than tribes that are not as fortunately situated. I have got actually both kinds of facilities and 

tribes in both situations in my district, and you know, it is pretty 

unfair in terms of those that simply do not have the ability. They 

would do so if they could. 

Toward that end, can you tell me where we are at in the joint 

venture process right now and whether or not the funds that were 

obligated—again, I know you have had to shuffle around funds to 

deal with shortfall, so if you could just give us some overview of 

how that has affected joint venture both for the tribes that in good 

faith put up money expecting support and sometimes not getting, 

but also some of the tough choices you have had to make because 

of that? 

Dr. ROUBIDEAUX. Right. Well, when we signed the Joint Venture 

Agreement with the tribes, they agree to fund the construction of 

the healthcare program and we agree to request the funding for the 

staffing through Congress. But it always is subject to appropriations. And so in a way, there are sort of three partners in this journey. It is the tribe, the Indian Health Service, and Congress. And 

as you know—— 

Mr. COLE. I know who I would not trust in that trio. 

Dr. ROUBIDEAUX. Well, you know, it has been challenging times 

with the budget and the ability to predict what the budgets will be 

in any year. And I appreciate all your partnership and trying to 

help us get the funds that we need, but we have many facilities 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
425 

who we are now required to, because of the appropriations not 

meeting the need, what we have to do is sort of fund the staffing 

over multiple years. And I know that the tribes do not like that but 

it is the only way we have been able to try to be fair when we base 

it on the beneficial occupancy, which is when they are ready to 

open. 

And so we have several of these facilities in the queue and we 

have some that are just getting started, and it makes us concerned 

about should we open another round for applications for the Joint 

Venture Program when we have so many facilities that need new 

staffing? And that is a big struggle and a decision we will need to 

make. 

Mr. COLE. This is a case, Chairman, where we are being penny 

wise and pound foolish because we get tribes to invest and then do 

not follow through and they are not going to invest again. So hopefully, we can do better. I yield back. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Just to follow up on what Mr. Cole was talking 

about and what you were, the $53 million that they apparently 

plussed-up in the Senate CR, the problem is where they took some 

of it from. They terminated the BIE School Construction Renovation Program, and so we kind of robbed from Peter to pay Paul and 

it does not advance us anywhere. What we need when we are talking about fully funding the contract support that this committee 

has tried to do over the years, what we need is some cooperation 

with the body across the rotunda and we all need to be working 

off the same numbers. And we have talked about this before and 

the challenges that presents. 

So Ms. Pingree. 

RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION

Ms. PINGREE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. And I am looking forward to the tutorial on working with the Senate. I knew I 

was going to learn something coming here. 

I am very grateful to be one of the new members on this committee, and a lot of my colleagues have already asked several of the 

things that I am also interested in, but just to the interest of time, 

let me reinforce a couple of them, and if you have some more comments, I would be happy to hear. 

Coming from the State of Maine, I am fortunate to represent four 

tribes. And some of these things, like I said, you have already 

heard the concerns. The Passamaquoddy was deeply concerned 

about the fact that, as Ms. McCollum said, that several programs 

were held harmless. And it seems very unreasonable that these 

were not, that Indian health is not treated in the same way as the 

other programs that we held harmless. And to the extent that 

there is any way to look at that, it certainly seems like it is causing 

tremendous difficulties for them. 

I think you talked a little bit about the model diabetes program, 

and we have been fortunate to have three of our four tribes involved in that and are just interested to know some of the things 

you talked about, what you can do. What can be done with more 

outreach is certainly significant. It is a significant problem in my 

State anyway and exacerbated within the tribes. And so to the exVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:45 Jul 20, 2013 Jkt 081687 PO 00000 Frm 00425 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A687P2.XXX A687P2

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
426 

tent that more could be done on outreach or, you know, just assistance to people who are really battling a very serious problem. 

And the one other thing I wanted to bring up was around the 

area of something that the Micmac tribe has been dealing with. 

And again, I think you talked a little bit about some of the challenges of medical personnel. But they have had really great success 

under the Government Performance and Results Act for the past 

3 years. They met all 21 of the GPRA indicators and have been recognized nationally for their work on dental services and outreach, 

which is of course a serious challenge again in a rural state within 

and outside the tribe. 

But one of their huge issues is recruiting workers. Can you talk 

a little bit more in that area? Even in areas that have success stories, it does not seem like they are getting assistance for being able 

to recruit the quality staff that they need or retain them once they 

get them. So to the extent that you want to comment, I know some 

of those things you have already discussed today, but they are 

looming issues for us as well. Thank you for your testimony. 

Dr. ROUBIDEAUX. And we would be happy to work with you on 

recruitment and retention strategies. 

What we are trying to do now is share best practices around the 

system because it seems like there are some facilities that do better 

than others at recruiting and retaining. A part of it is salaries, but 

we have got some special pay systems that we have implemented 

that have made our physician salaries much more competitive than 

they were in the past. Our other providers we have recently gotten 

some increases in pay for them as well. 

One of the things that we are trying to work with tribes on is 

that—and I saw this as a physician myself when I worked in the 

Indian Health Service—it really makes a difference if the community helps with the recruitment efforts, the community welcomes 

the providers, invites them to local events, you know, works with 

them in partnership on how to make things improve. And that is 

why I have a high priority on tribal consultation because I really 

feel if the providers connect with the local community, they may be 

more likely to see it as home and want to stay there. And our primary problem, in addition to recruitment, we also have those challenges with retention. And if we find a good doctor or a good nurse 

or a good provider, we have to do everything we can to keep them. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Joyce. 

SEQUESTRATION PERCENTAGE

Mr. JOYCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Roubideaux, thank you for appearing here today, and this 

may be a little bit of a follow-up to what my colleague, Ms. McCollum, had asked you, but I understood that there were between the 

sequestration cuts you normally expected a 2 percent cut, but then 

when doing the math, it was applied to closer to 9 percent. Can you 

explain why almost all other discretionary health programs are 

protected and the American Indians are not? 

Dr. ROUBIDEAUX. Well, what I can do is explain the sequence of 

events which was, you know, certainly sequestration was not supposed to happen, but when the Super Committee did not make 

their decision, then OMB was required to do an analysis of what 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
427 

sequestration would mean for the Federal Government. And it was 

in that analysis that OMB did that they discovered that the exclusion for both IHS and HRSA that had been in previous versions of 

the Budget Control Act was not in this Budget Control Act. That 

was back in September. That report was sent to Congress. We were 

informed and we notified our stakeholders about the fact that instead of a 2 percent exclusion, actually, the cut would be the full 

sequester, which at that time was 8.2 percent. 

However, with the fiscal cliff deal in December, the levels have 

been brought down to about a 5 percent cut. But that is still $220 

million, and that is really devastating for our system. So it appears 

that it is not in this version of the Budget Control Act, and I think 

there is certainly a lot of concern about the Indian Health Service 

not having that exclusion. 

Mr. JOYCE. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Valadao. 

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PREVENTION INITIATIVE

Mr. VALADAO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Your statement indicates that because of IHS’ Domestic Violence 

Prevention Initiative, 344 sexual assault frantic examination kits 

have been submitted by IHS to law enforcement. While I applaud 

the work the Service has done on this front, I cannot help to feel 

that 344 SAFE kits seems kind of low compared to the statistic of 

one in three native women will be sexually assaulted in their lifetime. How does your statistic of 344 SAFE kits submitted compare 

to the rate of sexual assault in Indian Country? If 344 is low by 

comparison, how does the Service intend to increase the number of 

SAFE kits it submits to law enforcement? And what challenges 

does the Service face in increasing the number of SAFE kits it offers? 

Dr. ROUBIDEAUX. Well, the data that we gave up about 344 

SAFE kits being submitted to law enforcement is related to the 

data collection around our Domestic Violence Prevention Initiative. 

In that initiative, we are funding 65 projects in the Indian Health 

System, 44 tribes, 13 IHS and 8 Urban Indian Health Programs to 

be able to provide culturally appropriate prevention and treatment 

models and evidence-based practices to address domestic violence 

and its strategies. In addition, we are training medical personnel 

to conduct the medical exams in all 45 of our hospitals that offer 

those kind of services and we are also providing funding to provide 

the equipment that they need for those services. 

And so I am not sure that this is the total number for our entire 

system. I know this is the number for the 65 projects that we have 

funded. And we will try to look and see if we can get some additional data to see what the number is for the entire system. 

UNDERFUNDED IHCIA PROVISIONS

Mr. VALADAO. And one more question if you do not mind. There 

are currently 23 unfunded provisions in the recently permanently 

reauthorized Indian Health Care Improvement Act. What are the 

funding priority areas for IHS? 

Dr. ROUBIDEAUX. Well, you are absolutely right. The Indian 

Health Care Improvement Act has over 80 provisions that help upVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:45 Jul 20, 2013 Jkt 081687 PO 00000 Frm 00427 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A687P2.XXX A687P2

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
428 

date and modernize the Indian Health Service. However, many of 

them represent new authorities and demonstration projects for 

which we do not have new or additional funding. 

What we have been doing is trying to implement the ones that 

we can without funding, and we have made great progress on that, 

but there still are a number of priorities. And I have consulted 

with tribes, and some of those priorities are long-term care services, dialysis services, and behavioral health issues. And so those 

are issues that we are trying to work on related to the budget formulation and working with tribes on tribal priorities. In this challenging budget climate, it has been difficult to get those budget priorities into the budget when there are higher priorities that we 

hear from tribes like Contract Health Service and how we pay for 

referrals. But we continue to work with the tribes on those priorities. 

Mr. VALADAO. Thank you. 

AFFORDABLE CARE ACT

Ms. MCCOLLUM. I was going to ask you take yield for a second. 

I had a follow-up. 

Was any of that funding in the Affordable Care Act? I know some 

of it was a line item separate from where you were, but my understanding was there was also some things that were funded in the 

Affordable Care Act that would be of benefit to Indian Country. 

Dr. ROUBIDEAUX. Well, there is actually many things in the Affordable Care Act that are benefiting American Indians and Alaska 

Natives. Certainly, the health insurance exchanges that are being 

established increase access to health insurance coverage in a more 

affordable way and that funding is critical to make sure that our 

patients have that option to be able to purchase affordable health 

insurance in case they do not have it. And that helps them in addition because if they still go to IHS, we can build their health insurance, and then those revenues can be used to improve health care 

for the rest of the community. So that is one of the benefits. 

There are a number of other demonstration projects that are 

being implemented in the Affordable Care Act around community 

prevention and community transformation, long-term care, supports and services, and so on that we have many tribal grantees 

who are part of that as well. 

And so we are grateful for the fact that the Affordable Care Act 

is another way that the federal responsibility for health care is 

given. The Indian Health Service is a healthcare system that provides healthcare services, but if more of our patients can have 

these other benefits of also being covered by health insurance or by 

Medicaid, that is more resources for all of our facilities and for the 

rest of the community. 

So that is why we are really focused on implementation of the 

Affordable Care Act in preparation for 2014 when the exchanges go 

live and the Medicaid expansion and those states that have chosen 

to do it is available for our patients. 

REINSTATE HEALTH RESEARCH AND MONITORING TRENDS

Mr. SIMPSON. In the House Report accompanying the fiscal year 

2013 Appropriation Bill, we encourage the IHS to reinstate health 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
429 

research and monitoring of trends, including updating the trends 

in Indian health and regional differences. In the Indian Health Report, are there efforts underway to get this going? 

Dr. ROUBIDEAUX. Yes, there are. So the Trends in Indian Health 

is a report of mortality statistics over time, and it is extremely important to us and it is a priority. The challenge of that is that it 

actually takes at least 4 years for us to get that data from the 

states through a number of channels to get it to us where we do 

the analysis and adjust for the underreporting on death certificates. So we are always a few years behind on publishing that 

data, and that has been true for many, many years. We plan to 

publish another version of Trends in Indian Health during the next 

year and also regional differences in Indian Health, which looks at 

the differences by areas. 

We also on occasion do ad hoc publication of special reports. 

Those are usually based on available funds as well. But tracking 

these trends is extremely important to us and we are in the process 

of getting another report. And the issue is it always is several 

years behind because from the time we get the vital statistics data 

from the states and then it goes through a number of other venues. 

Then, it gets to us. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. And thank you. We have got a vote 

going on now. Thank you for your testimony. We appreciate you 

being here. 

The Committee will recess for these votes. We have got three 

votes, a 15-minute vote that started 10 minutes ago, so it is nearing an end, and then two 5-minute votes. And then we will be back 

for the panel that begins probably 20 minutes from now. So I appreciate it. Thank you for being here. And thank you for the work 

that you do in working with us in trying to address these concerns. 

As you noted and as I have noted and as Jim has noted, it is a bipartisan effort on the part of this committee. It is a responsibility 

we have. It is one we take very seriously. 

And I guess you could probably blame me as much as anybody 

for not recognizing early enough that sequestration was going to 

hit Indian Health Services unlike Medicare and Medicaid and the 

others that were kind of exempted out of that. I should have had 

my antennas up and caught that, and unfortunately, I did not. It 

is something we have got to deal with. But we want to work with 

you to make sure that it does not have any more negative impact 

than absolutely necessary. So I appreciate it. Thank you. 

Dr. ROUBIDEAUX. Thank you. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you for your patience in waiting for us during that series of votes. 

Our next panel is Mr. Rex Lee Jim, Vice President of the Navajo 

Nation testifying on behalf of the National Indian Health Board; 

Mr. D’Shane Barnett, Executive Director of the National Council of 

Urban Indian Health; Dr. Kelly Moore, Associate Professor of the 

Centers for American Indian and Alaska Native Health at the University of Colorado testifying on behalf of the Friends of Indian 

Health; and Dr. Henry Fields, Professor at the College of Dentistry 

at Ohio State University testifying on behalf of the American Dental Association. I understand Dr. Moore has to catch a plane, so we 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
430 

are going to let you testify first, and then if there are questions 

there, we might do those before we go to the others. 

So Dr. Moore, the floor is yours. 

OPENING REMARKS OF DR. KELLY MOORE

Dr. MOORE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, Mr. 

Chairman, Mr. Moran, and committee members. I am Dr. Kelly 

Moore, a member of the Muscogee Creek Nation of Oklahoma and 

a pediatrician. I am an associate professor at the University of Colorado with the Centers for American Indian and Alaska Native 

Health and a retired captain in the U.S. Public Health Service with 

20 years of service to IHS. 

I am here on behalf of the Friends of Indian Health, a coalition 

of over 50 health organizations, including the American Academy 

of Pediatrics. The Friends appreciates the opportunity to address 

whether increased congressional funding for the IHS has been effective in improving the health of the American Indians and Alaska 

Natives. 

I can say from my experience that funding increases have made 

a positive difference in the care and treatment of children, as well 

as people with diabetes. These are most evident in the sustained 

improvements of blood sugar, blood pressure, and blood cholesterol 

levels that we have seen among people with diabetes. We have also 

seen impressive results in preventing complications. By teaching 

people with diabetes the importance of foot care, providing protective footwear, and routine podiatry care, IHS has reduced amputations by 20 to 25 percent in some areas. 

The Together on Diabetes program is a program for young people 

in the Navajo area and in White River, Arizona. The program’s success lies with the family health coaches who provide crucial oneon-one support to help youth achieve changes in health behaviors 

and attendance at their healthcare appointments. This is an essential step towards better health for our young people with diabetes. 

Programs have also been established to address other pediatric 

health priorities. The AAP has seen a number of model programs 

on their Committee on Native American Child Health site visits. 

Open-access scheduling which allows parents to call and schedule 

sick visits or well-child care visits the same day or same week is 

now more widely available. At one site, this has improved show 

rates for appointments from 65 percent to 91 percent. Immunization rates are now at an all-time high. Many programs designed to 

address healthy weight promotion among youngsters have been put 

in place like the ‘‘Be Hopi, Be Healthy’’ Camps. 

Telehealth is also emerging as a way to improve healthcare and 

remote areas because ENT specialists are rare and ear infections 

and ruptured eardrums are common for children. Alaska has developed a telehealth solution to provide services to 248 sites. For 

every dollar spent by Alaska Medicaid to reimburse telehealth, 

$11.50 was saved in travel costs. 

Not only has there been an improvement in pediatrics and diabetes care, but mortality rates for IHS patients have fallen from the 

1990s. Since 2005, overall mortality rates have fallen by 11 percent. But there is still much to do. Suicide is the second-leading 

cause of death among American Indians and Alaska Natives beVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:45 Jul 20, 2013 Jkt 081687 PO 00000 Frm 00430 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A687P2.XXX A687P2

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
431 

tween the ages of 15 and 24. Almost 23 percent of native youth 

over age 12 report alcohol use. While native teenagers, young people, and middle-aged adults have the highest rates of methamphetamine use in the United States, drug use varies among tribes. For 

this reason, the Friends believe that IHS drug programs should not 

be focused exclusively on meth. Funding should support a treatment/prevention/recovery/law enforcement infrastructure with a 

focus on family. Substance abuse prevention is most effective when 

the whole family is involved. 

Many American Indian and Alaska Native children live in economically depressed areas. Nearly one in four Native American 

children live in poverty, experience four times higher rates of abuse 

and neglect, and have lower rates of educational achievement than 

other racial and ethnic groups in America. Early literacy promotion 

initiatives like Reach Out and Read and family nurse home visitations can improve maternal and child health outcomes. Investments like these have been proven to produce savings in health 

care costs and reduce the use of Child and Family Services. 

In my written testimony, I also discuss the plight of the American Indian and Alaska Native male and the high death rate 

among this group. For several years, the Friends has testified 

about the need to fully fund Contract Health Services. In 2010, 

over 217,000 referrals for Contract Health Services were denied. 

We thank the Committee for increasing the funding by 64 million 

since 2010. But in spite of these increases, the need for Contract 

Health Services and reliance on private specialty and tertiary care 

will be ongoing because the IHS and tribal healthcare delivery system is predominantly a primary care medical system. But a redesign of the Contract Health System could result in care that is 

timelier, more effective, and patient-centered at a lower cost. 

Prevention and early treatment programs can also reduce the 

need for Contract Health Services, but having a sufficient workforce is the key to their success. Filling vacancies through loan repayment has proven to be an effective recruitment and retention 

tool. In 2012, the IHS awarded 507 new loan repayment contracts 

and 316 contract extensions. However, 338 requests were denied. 

The Friends urges the Committee to increase funding for this account by at least $17 million to fund all applications. 

It is difficult to adequately address health problems without the 

best and most up-to-date research. Surveillance research in particular is vital to understanding disease and injury patterns and 

the impact of newer treatments and interventions. The Friends recommends additional funding for the IHS and tribal Epidemiology 

Centers to conduct surveillance research to better target resources 

to improve the health status of Indian people. 

The Friends thanks the Committee for its continued support of 

the IHS. Your actions have indeed made a difference, but because 

the IHS has been underfunded for years, the health disparity gap 

has not yet closed. We look forward to working with you to close 

that gap. 

[The statement of Kelly Moore follows:] 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
432 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 656 here 81687B.008
433 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 657 here 81687B.009
434 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 658 here 81687B.010
435 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 659 here 81687B.011
436 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 660 here 81687B.012
437 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 661 here 81687B.013
438 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 662 here 81687B.014
439 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 663 here 81687B.015
440 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 664 here 81687B.016
441 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 665 here 81687B.017
442 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you for your testimony. What time do you 

have to catch a plane? When do we need to get you—— 

Dr. MOORE. My flight is at 5:10. I probably need to leave here 

by 4:00 at the latest I would say. 

Mr. SIMPSON. We could ask questions now and then go to the 

rest of the panel if that is okay. Do you want to do the panel first? 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. No. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Okay. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. I am okay with it. 

Mr. MORAN. Absolutely. 

EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS

Mr. SIMPSON. Okay. Let me ask you. You mentioned a program 

called Reach Out and Read. Tell me how the educational programs 

relate to improving health care? 

Dr. MOORE. You know, that is really a good question. Reach Out 

and Read is an art and literacy program that is actually implemented in the context of well-child care visits. So nurses and doctors actually distribute books at 6 months to 5 years of age to encourage parents to read aloud to their children. It has really 

changed the way pediatrics is practiced in our Nation, and it gives 

doctors an evidence-based strategy to promote child development 

and school readiness. 

Children served by Reach out and Read will develop the language and literacy skills necessary to read, complete school, and 

succeed in life. And the success of each one of those children and 

the collective success of all at-risk children all over the country will 

mean increased productivity and economic security for our Nation. 

If they are able to get jobs, it will improve their health literacy in 

terms of understanding instructions given to them related to medications, related to treatment for conditions for which they are being 

seen. So it does have a lot to do with health as well as health equity. 

APPOINTMENTS

Mr. SIMPSON. You mentioned also in your testimony that the improvement in showing up for an appointment in this one program 

went from 65 to, what did you say, 95 percent or something like 

that? 

Dr. MOORE. 91 percent, yes. 

Mr. SIMPSON. A lot of people do not understand this when I tell 

people in the rest of the world that are not dentists and stuff—I 

was a dentist in the real world—that the biggest expense in the 

dental office is actually missed and broken appointments. And the 

same thing is true for most other medical programs. 

Dr. MOORE. Absolutely. 

Mr. SIMPSON. When somebody does not show up for an appointment, the costs and everything else still go on. But there is nobody 

there you are servicing so that is an important factor. And if there 

are things that we can do to make sure that people show up for 

the appointments that they have, we will be able to spread limited 

dollars a lot further. 

Dr. MOORE. Absolutely. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Moran. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
443 

Mr. MORAN. I am fine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Cole. 

SUCCESSFUL PROGAMS

Mr. COLE. Just a quick one. You have got obviously a good and 

extensive background. If you are looking at things that tribes could 

do to reinforce what IHS has done, what are successful tribal programs, either where they have resources or they have taken some 

initiative that has really made a difference on top of what the service itself has? 

Dr. MOORE. Well, I think Dr. Roubideaux’s comment about helping with recruitment and retention in terms of helping to make 

health professionals feel at home in Indian communities where 

they serve would be extremely beneficial. I think that is one of our 

biggest problems is sometimes we are able to recruit but if tribes 

could help support, you know, keeping those healthcare professionals in our community, that would be, you know, a tremendous 

service. 

I think if tribes could also look at sort of other economic initiatives that can, you know, help many of our Indian Nations rise up 

and out of poverty, that would incredibly help, I think, the health 

status of American Indians and Alaska Natives as well. 

Mr. COLE. Thank you. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Ms. McCollum. 

HHS INITIATIVES

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you. I am glad you mentioned Reach out 

and Read. I have actually seen doctors in action doing it. We do 

it with some of our low-income immigrant groups, as well as our 

Native American families on the east side of the St. Paul. And talking to the doctors afterwards, the doctors love it, but the doctors 

not only are encouraging a child to read, but with toddlers in the 

room, they will have a toddler book, and some toddlers do not even 

know to reach for the book because they have never been handed 

a book. And then that is a clue to the doc sometimes that there 

might be a literacy problem even with the adult and then spending 

a little more time talking about how the antibiotic is taken, would 

you like a reminder, how would you like me to—and so they saw 

even improvement in the way medication was being applied to the 

young adult. It is a public, private, and doctor initiative through 

the Department of Ed, so a lot of people give and donate to a lot 

of our corporations. 

Are there some other examples? I know you mentioned not onesize-fits-all in the drug program or its suicide prevention. It needs 

to be culturally appropriate. But we have got the CDC; we have got 

SAMHSA. My question is is there an intra-HHS group that works 

on Native American health issues with some of the centers for disease control with some of the, you know, the Department of 

Health? What kind of conversations are people having whether it 

be urban Native American health or on the reservation? And then 

my other question would be the challenges—we have people who 

winter back and forth or adults who come down for awhile while 

they are ill and they are in the Twin Cities for the winter, and 

then they go back up in the summer and electronic medical records 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
444 

and making sure that compliance and that doctors are prescribing 

the same thing. 

So I threw a lot of things out there and whatever you want to 

talk about, I am happy to listen to. 

Dr. MOORE. Right. There are some interagency groups that have 

been, for instance, around obesity, fetal alcohol syndrome. Those 

kinds of approaches have been used in terms of voting interagency 

collaboration on important health disparities. I think that some of 

the conversations that are taking place are indeed that we need to 

move beyond addressing health disparities through just focusing on 

just healthcare and healthcare facilities to try and address things 

like the social determinants of health. And that is why I love the 

Reach out and Read program. 

But there are other programs. One of the ones that I am familiar 

with actually happened many years ago on the Pima Indian reservation where they were looking at diabetes prevention activities 

for overweight Pima individuals. And as many of you know, the 

Pima of the Gila River Indian community have some of the highest 

rates of diabetes reported in the world. And what they found was 

that they had two groups, and one group received just the traditional change or lifestyle, start eating better, start being more active, whereas another group got together and just talked about the 

cultures and traditions of the Pima people and what they could do 

to try and instill that in their youth. And when they looked at both 

groups later in terms of some metabolic indicators related to diabetes, it was actually the group where they focused on traditional history, traditional cultural ways that could be implemented again 

now, they actually did better. Their BMI was lower and some of 

their indicators like insulin levels for diabetes were also lower as 

well. 

So those kinds of things can really help as well. So I really support a lot of programs that try and instill cultural pride, respect, 

just traditional ways of living. Even though we cannot go back and 

turn back the hands of time, there are still many things about that 

that help promote self-esteem of our youth, and that can be very 

helpful. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Ms. Pingree. 

Ms. PINGREE. Thank you. 

LOAN REPAYMENT

Thanks for your testimony and your work today. My colleagues 

have already asked a lot of things that I was interested in any way. 

And I will only ask you to follow up on one thing. I represent the 

State of Maine. We have four tribes there, and we have a practitioner shortage anyway, and that the tribes are experiencing it in 

an even more severe way. 

And it was interesting to hear you say a little bit about the program that helps with loan repayment. I know from talking to medical students—and we have a small medical school in our State— 

many of them want to stay but loan repayment is, you know, 

$250,000, $300,000 for many of them, and that they are dealing 

with a low-funded job, it is very difficult to just even keep their 

head above water even if they want to do that. So if you could just 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
445 

reiterate what the current funding is and what you think the shortage is to the extent that you know? 

Dr. MOORE. Let’s see. I think we saw there were in 2012, 507 

new loan repayment contracts and 316 contract extensions, but 

there were 338 requests that were denied. So we were urging the 

Committee to consider increased funding for this account by at 

least $17 million to fund all the applications that the Indian 

Health Service receives. But you are absolutely right. The incredible debt burden that is assumed by young healthcare professional 

students is extremely overwhelming and can prevent them from 

pursuing that type of career. 

Ms. PINGREE. Great. Well, thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, Dr. Moore, for being here today. You 

can stay as far as you would like. You are welcome to stay, but we 

appreciate you being here today to give your testimony as we try 

to address this issue. 

Vice President Jim, we welcome you here, Vice President of the 

Navajo Nation, and we look forward to your testimony. 

Mr. JIM. Thank you. 

OPENING REMARKS OF MR. REX LEE JIM

Chairman Simpson, Ranking Member Moran, and members of 

the subcommittee, thank you for holding this important oversight 

hearing on Indian health. My name is Rex Lee Jim. I am the vice 

president of the Navajo Nation. I am also the co-chair for the IHS 

Budget Formulation Group. I also sit on the Secretary’s Tribal Advisory Committee for the DHHS. 

As the treasurer for Navajo area representatives of the National 

Indian Health Board, thank you for inviting NIHB to provide these 

comments. 

We all know that the federal trust responsibility is the foundation for federally funded health care to all members of the 566 federally recognized Indian tribes, bands, and Alaska Native villages. 

This trust responsibility is a direct result of treaties that were 

made between the United States and tribes and reaffirmed by Executive Orders, congressional actions, and two centuries of Supreme Court case law. We also all know that it is possible to improve health equities as the health status of Indian people has improved slowly over the last 40 years with an increase in resources, 

healthcare providers, funding, and other support. Yet, the IHS has 

long been plagued by woefully inadequate funding in all areas, a 

circumstance which has made it impossible to supply Indian people 

with the level of care they need. 

Thanks to the dedication of this committee, steps have been 

taken towards the fulfillment of the federal trust responsibility by 

ensuring that IHS receives annual increases. Strong and sustained 

funding is necessary to address preventable disease and allow IHS 

to move from a sick-care system to a true public health model with 

a focus on prevention. 

An excellent example of this model is the Special Diabetes Program for Indians. SDPI provides grant funding to 404 diabetes 

treatment and prevention programs and 35 states. SDPI grantees 

follow specific reporting requirements that allow for assessment of 

grantee progress. We have seen remarkable progress over the last 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
446 

several years on the data gathered from the SDPI programs, for example, a decrease in the average blood sugar level from 9 percent 

in 1996 to 8.1 percent in 2010, a 73 percent increase in primary 

prevention. 

SDPI is making a real difference in the lives of people who must 

manage diabetes on a daily basis. This federal investment and community-driven, culturally appropriate programs has led to significant advances in diabetes education, prevention, and treatment. 

This program is a significant accomplishment for travel healthcare 

and shows how adequate funding to address a chronic disease can 

achieve health improvements. 

Today, we offer the following recommendations to help to advance the Indian Health Care System. First, we asked Congress to 

work towards full funding of the Indian Health Care System, which 

is currently funded on average at 56 percent of true need. Tribes 

have long asked for full funding of the IHS and we do not know 

the full potential of the IHS unless it is fully funded. For example, 

in 2010 IHS spending for medical care was $2,700 per user in comparison to the average federal healthcare expenditure of the $7,200 

per person, a difference of $4,500. The tribal projected needs-based 

budget for fiscal year 2015 is now $27.6 billion. This would be less 

than 3 percent of the HHS budget of $941 billion. 

NIHB also urges Congress to consider the rates of both medical 

and nonmedical inflation during the appropriations process and 

recommend an increase in funding to address these needs. 

As I noted in my written testimony, the national data on American Indians and Alaska Natives is outdated. We need timely and 

accessible data to appropriately assess the health care needs for 

our people in order to plan healthcare delivery and public health 

programs. With this foundational knowledge, tribes can make the 

best possible decisions for allocation of scarce financial resources. 

Other federal agencies collecting health data often do not offer 

American Indian and Alaska Native statistics, thus resulting in 

failure to correctly identify Indian individuals. Data ownership and 

access issues must be addressed, however, before this potential can 

be realized. We request additional funding to support the tribes 

and collecting data. 

Another recommendation is to advance appropriations to IHS. 

Since fiscal year 1998, funding for IHS has not been provided before the commencement of the new fiscal year. The delayed funding, which ranges from 5 days to 197 days, significantly hampers 

tribal and IHS health care providers’ budgeting, recruitment, retention, provisional services, facility maintenance, and construction 

efforts. 

If IHS funding was an advanced appropriation cycle like the Veterans Administration, tribal healthcare providers, as well as the 

IHS, would know the funding a year earlier and it would not be 

subject to continuing resolutions. Providing sufficient, timely, and 

predictable funding is needed to ensure the Federal Government 

meet its obligation to provide healthcare for our people. 

Another priority of Indian healthcare is the Contract Health 

Service. The CHS exists because the IHS system lacks the capacity 

to provide all the healthcare needed by the IHS service population. 

In theory, CHS should be an effective and efficient way to purchase 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
447 

specialty care. In reality, CHS is so grossly underfunded that Indian Country cannot purchase the quantity and types of care needed. The IHS Tribal Alert Group and CHS is reviewing this issue 

and we encourage this committee to review the work group’s final 

recommendations once they are released. 

The tribes are extremely concerned about the consequences of sequestration. Unlike other federal programs such as Medicaid and 

the VA, the IHS is not exempt from the looming automatic acrossthe-board cuts. The IHS budget will suffer a devastating cut of 

$220 million. Its true costs will be measurable in lives as well as 

dollars. If this Congress cannot design alternate methods of deficit 

reduction, the NIHB requests that Congress makes the IHS permanently exempt from all cuts. 

Lastly, we also mentioned in our written testimony and issue 

with the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. The Act includes Indian-specific benefits and protections, but unfortunately, 

the provisions include different statutory references of Indian law. 

We are asking for Congress’ help with a legislative fix for adopting 

the definition of Indian used by CMS for Medicaid. 

And closing, although our Nation faces a new budget reality, the 

National Indian Health Board asks that this subcommittee give 

full consideration to the true needs of the IHS as well as Indian 

Country and the federal trust responsibility to its first Americans. 

I thank the subcommittee for its time and for the opportunity to 

present this testimony. Thank you. 

[The statement of Rex Lee Jim follows:] 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
448 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 679 here 81687B.018
449 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 680 here 81687B.019
450 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 681 here 81687B.020
451 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 682 here 81687B.021
452 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 683 here 81687B.022
453 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 684 here 81687B.023
454 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 685 here 81687B.024
455 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 686 here 81687B.025
456 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 687 here 81687B.026
457 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 688 here 81687B.027
458 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 689 here 81687B.028
459 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Lee. 

Mr. Barnett. 

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I am getting a little worried about 

Dr. Moore making it to the airport on time. Even if you are leaving 

from National, you probably need to leave now if you are going to 

make a five o’clock flight. 

Mr. SIMPSON. There is nobody that knows that better than Mr. 

Moran. 

Mr. MORAN. You could encounter a little traffic across the bridge. 

Dr. MOORE. Absolutely. Well, thank you so much. 

Mr. BARNETT. Thank you very much, Dr. Moore. 

Dr. MOORE. Thank you. 

OPENING REMARKS OF MR. D’SHANE BARNETT

Mr. BARNETT. Chairman Simpson, Ranking Member Moran, and 

members of the subcommittee, good afternoon. My name is D’Shane 

Barnett. I am Mandan and Arikara from the Mandan, Hidatsa and 

Arikara Nation of Fort Berthold, North Dakota. 

On behalf of the National Council of Urban Indian Health, our 

38 member healthcare programs, and the more than 100,000 American Indians and Alaska natives that we serve each year, it is an 

honor to appear before you today to speak about the health status 

of American Indians and Alaska Natives living in cities across the 

United States. 

Before I begin, I would like to thank Congress for the recent passage of the Violence Against Women Act and for including the tribal protections. Given that much of our population migrates backand-forth between reservations, rural towns, and urban areas, 

these protections will support many of the women that we serve. 

Urban Indian communities are direct result and consequence of 

failed federal policies. Instead of investing in employment and education in Indian Country, between 1952 and 1960, the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs relocated an estimated 160,000 American Indians off 

of their reservations to live in urban areas as part of its Indian Relocation Program. With job opportunities scarce and little or no financial assistance from the BIA, American Indians developed significant health disparities that persist to this day. 

In 1974, the Supreme Court ruled that assistance afforded to Indian people is not limited to those currently living on a reservation. 

In recognition of the deplorable health status of urban Indians, 

Congress enacted Title V of the Indian Health Care Improvement 

Act to ensure that healthcare services made available in the fulfillment of trust responsibility to reach all American Indians and 

Alaska Natives. 

IHS-funded Urban Indian Health programs are both an attempt 

to mitigate the harm caused by the federal relocation policy and an 

expression of the United States trust responsibility to all American 

Indians and Alaska Native people. IHS currently funds 38 Urban 

Indian Health programs operating in 21 states. With line item 

funding of only $43 million, these programs provide more than 

275,000 patient encounters each year to Indian people providing 

high-quality, culturally appropriate services that cannot be received at other safety net healthcare providers. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
460 

In addition to primary care services, our programs provide traditional healthcare services, behavioral and mental health services, 

residential substance abuse treatment services, sexual assault and 

domestic violence prevention, and social services such as job placement and health insurance eligibility and enrollment. 

IHS funding for Urban Indian Health is currently estimated to 

represent only 18.6 percent of total need. Because of this, our programs leverage $1.50 for every dollar appropriated through the Indian Health Service. However, the federal trust responsibility cannot be shifted onto states, counties, foundations, and public or private reimbursement. The primary source of funding for the majority of our programs remains of the Indian Health Service. 

It is essential to note that Urban Indian Health programs to not 

benefit from funding resources in other areas of the IHS budget 

such as Contract Health Services, facilities, contract support costs, 

or others. Because of this, resources intended to improve the health 

status of American Indians in urban centers need to be appropriated to the IHS Urban Indian Health line item. 

According to the 2010 census, 71 percent of Indians live in urban 

centers. This means that even in cities where Urban Indian Health 

programs, or UIHPs, exist, limited IHS funding and recent budget 

cuts have led to many patients either being referred out for treatment or going without care entirely. 

Current funding limitations make it impossible to provide comprehensive services to every patient. Further, the fact that UIHPs 

have had their sexual assault prevention grants and their domestic 

violence prevention grants eliminated means that there are fewer 

resources to address the disparities that our women and their families face each and every day. 

All too often, federal policies and laws that were intended to improve the health of all American Indians have inadvertently excluded urban Indian patients and providers. One example is the 

IHS-VA agreement language that was discussed earlier, which does 

not include urban programs. Another example, Congress provided 

IHS and tribal health programs with 100 percent federal payment 

for Medicaid services known as FMAP. The tiny omission of our 

programs from 100 percent FMAP is creating significant barriers 

to health care for urban Indian people even though data provided 

by HHS shows that conclusion of urban Indian programs in 100 

percent FMAP is estimated to cost somewhere in the range of only 

$5 million a year. 

Increased Medicaid revenues via 100 percent FMAP could mitigate some of the challenges of limited IHS resources. For this reason, NCUIH urges Congress to take the lead and provide urban Indian Medicaid beneficiaries with the same opportunities for care 

that IHS and tribal patients enjoy. 

Likewise, the Administration’s determination that the definition 

of Indian and the Affordable Care Act is intended to include only 

members of federally recognized tribes will have a detrimental and 

disproportionate impact on urban Indian communities and 

healthcare providers. While our programs serve tribal citizens from 

hundreds of federally recognized tribes, many of our patients face 

obstacles to tribal enrollment or are members of tribes that lost 

federal recognition as a result of the devastating federal termiVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:45 Jul 20, 2013 Jkt 081687 PO 00000 Frm 00460 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A687P2.XXX A687P2

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
461 

nation policy of the 1940s. Although these Indians are eligible to 

receive services from IHS, tribal, and urban healthcare facilities, 

they will nevertheless be excluded from the American Indian provisions and protections of the healthcare law. 

HHS leadership has publicly acknowledged their intent to work 

with Congress and we urge you to address this problem and a line 

the ACA definition of Indian with the current Medicaid definition 

of Indian, which explicitly includes urban Indians and other native 

people who may not currently be enrolled members of federally recognized tribes. 

In closing, I would like to emphasize that NCUIH supports the 

tribal recommendation for full funding of the Indian Health Service 

at $27.6 billion. And we ask that full funding be afforded to the 

Urban Indian Health line item at $231 million and that the shortfall be addressed by annual increases of only $18.8 million over 10 

years. We would like to urge you to extend 100 percent FMAP for 

Urban Indian Health programs. 

And finally, we want to call your attention to the harmful effects 

of the sequestration. We stand with the National Indian Health 

Board in calling for exemption of the Indian Health Service from 

sequestration and we ask the Subcommittee to consider the impact 

of these cuts when determining IHS funding levels for fiscal year 

2014 and beyond. 

Thank you very much for your time here today and I would be 

happy to take any questions you may have. 

[The statement of D’Shane Barnett follows:] 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
462 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 696 here 81687B.029
463 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 697 here 81687B.030
464 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 698 here 81687B.031
465 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 699 here 81687B.032
466 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 700 here 81687B.033
467 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Barnett. 

Dr. Fields. 

OPENING REMARKS OF DR. HENRY FIELDS

Mr. FIELDS. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Mr. Moran, and committee members. I am Henry Fields, Chairman of the American 

Dental Association’s Council on Government Affairs. I am a professor and division chair of orthodontics at The Ohio State University. I am a private-practicing orthodontist and chief of 

orthodontics at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus. I am 

also trained as a pediatric dentist. 

The ADA appreciates the opportunity to respond to the Committee’s question as to whether and to what extent your actions in 

prior years have reduced the tremendous disparities between Native Americans and the general population and to recommend future actions. In the 1990s, the budget for the IHS Division of Oral 

Health was $65 million. Today, it is more than $159 million. We 

are grateful for all the Committee has done to address the oral 

health needs of the American Indian and the Alaska Natives. It 

has resulted in improvements and oral health, but there is much 

that needs to be done. 

There is an epidemic in early childhood caries, or ECC, which is 

simply tooth decay among native children. The ECC prevalence is 

about three times or 300 percent higher in this population than in 

other equivalent populations. We will never drill, fill, or extract our 

way out of this epidemic. 

Traditionally, preventing oral disease has been possible and costeffective. Children having their first dental visit before 1 are more 

likely to have follow-up preventive visits and lower dental costs. 

The earlier a child sees a dentist, the more cost savings there are. 

Regarding ECC, the epidemiology of ECC is unclear. We need appropriate measures and data. Poor enamel may be a factor. Oral 

bacteria are different in this population and need studied, as well 

as does the immunology of the situation. We need new treatment 

approaches. This appears to be a different disease, especially 

among this group. 

Traditionally, placing dental sealants on older children has resulted in Medicaid savings, especially for high-risk populations. 

IHS dentists are making advances in these areas in prevention. In 

2011, the IHS placed over 276,000 sealants, 19,000 over their goal. 

Regarding treatment, IHS dentists increased the number of patients seen from 23 to 28 percent, which is a 5 percent increase 

since the 1990s. And regarding the utilization of fluoride application, over 161,000 Indian students received at least one fluoride 

treatment. This is almost 26,000 applications over its goal. Things 

are improving. 

These accomplishments are due to a focus on prevention combined with an increased workforce. In 2009, the IHS reported needing 140 dentists. Today, the vacancies are down to 40. The IHS 

Summer Externship Program and improved loan program funding 

have contributed to attracting dentists. Last summer 104 externs 

participated in the summer program, which resulted in 12,000 patient visits. The average dental student alone debt is $200,000. In 

2012, the IHS Loan Repayment Program funded all 107 applicants 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
468 

from dentists and hygienists. Of those, 65 extended their contracts, 

underscoring the effectiveness of this recruitment and retention 

tool. This appears to be working. 

Of course, more dentists are needed for more dental care. But 

while pleased with the increased utilization, we would like to see 

this rate continued to increase to 37 percent for adults and 46 percent for children, which is the national rate. 

Additional investments in oral health literacy, which others have 

acknowledged, prevention and workforce are needed to accomplish 

this goal. More IHS dentists means the division can move more 

quickly to implement the Early Childhood Caries Initiative. The 

first step was to conduct an oral health assessment of children up 

to age 5. These data were gathered over 2 years ago but have not 

resulted in being fully or officially released. This delay has consequences. The ADA has met with the Arizona Dental Association 

and they have been meetings that we have implemented over 2 

years ago with local tribes preparing to try to join forces and implement these recommendations for the ECC. Without these data and 

direction from the IHS, we cannot act. We urge the Committee to 

encourage the IHS to release the report. 

Assuming that the report will eventually be released, the division 

will need a full-time person to monitor and coordinate the initiatives with the tribes and their partners, another comment that others have made. Having someone to oversee the project is vital to 

ensuring a uniform approach by all participating entities. We urge 

the Committee to provide an additional 300,000 for needed personnel and materials. 

We know that due to years of underfunding oral health disease 

among American Indians and Alaska Native children and adults 

exceeds treatment capacity. In 2009, the ADA estimated that to 

achieve parity with IHS patients, the budget for the division would 

need to be $600 million. That level of funding is not going to happen overnight, especially in these constrained economic times. So 

it is necessary to augment IHS services in other ways. 

During the past 6 years, the ADA has recruited more than 200 

volunteer dentists and dental students to serve in Indian Country. 

More volunteers could be recruited if IHS could streamline the 

credentialing process. 

The ADA and several other state societies in Indian Country 

have joined forces to advance oral health outreach through the Native American Oral Healthcare Project. Our meetings with tribal 

leaders have centered on such goals as we can work together to enhance preventive efforts, increase access to dentures for elderly, 

and to increase oral health literacy. 

Clearly, there is need for more American Indian dentists. We are 

taking the first steps to establish an educational pipeline that will 

extend from exposing young children to oral health careers to mentoring native dental students. As our plans developed, we anticipate a need for additional resources for the tribal nations to meet 

these goals. We hope that the Committee will continue to support 

our efforts in building these private-public partnerships. Thank you 

for allowing the ADA to testify. We are committed to working with 

you, the IHS, and the tribes to reduce dramatically the disparities 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
469 

in oral disease and access to care that currently exist in Indian 

Country. Thank you. 

[The statement of Henry Fields follows:] 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
470 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 708 here 81687B.036
471 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 709 here 81687B.037
472 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 710 here 81687B.038
473 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 711 here 81687B.039
474 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 712 here 81687B.040
475 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 713 here 81687B.041
476 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 714 here 81687B.042
477 

DENTISTRY CHALLENGES

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, Dr. Fields. And thank all of you for 

your testimony. Since we have had vacancies go from 140 down to 

40, apparently, I better leave Congress pretty quick if I am going 

to start filling one of those. What are the challenges that make it 

difficult for dentists to practice dentistry on reservations? 

Mr. FIELDS. I think some of the cultural interactions are difficult 

for some people to understand. I think that loan repayment and 

salaries were an issue in the past. I think those have been improving and they are being met. I think that part of some of the morale 

issues among the dentists would be with early childhood caries, the 

inability to make inroads. It is so difficult. It is devastating, and 

it hurts the morale of the providers, I think. 

HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONS

Mr. SIMPSON. You mentioned something that I was going to ask 

Dr. Roubideaux about and that it seems to me like one of the best 

ways to get dentists and doctors back to reservations is to help 

educate them in the field of dentistry and being a physician. What 

is the pipeline of getting more Native Americans involved in 

healthcare professions and so forth? Are there very many Indians 

that are going to college to become doctors or dentists or anything 

else like that? 

Mr. FIELDS. Well, I think that the data would indicate that there 

are a number of young Indians who want healthcare careers. And 

many times, those decisions are made quite early in life. Sometimes, people make those in grade school and junior high. Unfortunately, if those aspirations are not cultivated, you go nowhere. And 

there has not been very good cultivation of those people so that 

then they can achieve the academic excellence that they need in 

high school, and then they need to be tutored or directed when they 

are in college to understand what they need to take for prerequisites. If you go to a smaller school that does not have adequate directional services, most people get lost. And I think it is 

not because they do not have the aspirations; it is because they are 

not cultivated. And that just requires more time and energy. 

And that is what the Pipeline Project is about, trying to bring 

these people along, give them adequate attention, help them succeed. Right now, they are trying to succeed on their own and the 

Pipeline Project is aimed at trying to bring those people along and 

provide them with the resources they need. 

Mr. SIMPSON. We can learn a lot from the TRIO program that 

actually takes young people that are first-time students where 

their parents have never really gone to college or anything—I happen to be the co-chair of that caucus—that it actually gets them in 

high school in the Upward Bound Programs and other things. A lot 

of times these students have never thought about going to college 

because their parents never went. They never had a history of that, 

or anything else. 

It really helps mentor them and tutor them into thinking of 

going to postsecondary education and then helps support them 

through the program. It has been a tremendous asset in helping 

these first-time students. Not only does it help that first-time stuVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:45 Jul 20, 2013 Jkt 081687 PO 00000 Frm 00477 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A687P2.XXX A687P2

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
478 

dent, it helps all of their friends and sisters and brothers who 

never thought about going to college that went, man, Jane went to 

college. Maybe I can go to college. 

We could probably learn something from the TRIO program 

about how to get people, Indians, into medical educations, because 

ultimately, that is going to be part of the answer. 

But anyway, I appreciate your testimony. 

INDIAN HEALTH FUNDING

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Jim, after reading your written testimony, I 

came away with the message or at least the impression of the message that recent Indian health funding increases have been helpful 

but insufficient, that the data needed to truly measure progress is 

inadequate and outdated, and that the health disparity between 

American Indians and Alaska Natives and other populations continues to widen. Is that an accurate interpretation of your testimony? 

Mr. JIM. Mr. Chairman, that is an accurate interpretation. My testimony indicates that the budget based need is at $27.6 billion, 

and so even though there have been increases, it is only a little bit 

over $4 billion. And also there is a huge difference. And so we recommend that over 12 years that there be a phase-in so we get to 

the $27.6 billion level and so we are asking about $5.3 billion for 

this fiscal year 2015. And if we continue to do that, we should be 

able to catch up. 

And to answer some of your earlier questions regarding Indian 

Country and Navajo, we are doing what is called Grow Your Own, 

and so we are beginning to do an analysis of what is needed on 

that. And there are 206 employed medical doctor positions on Navajo and less than 10 are occupied by Navajo. 

Mr. SIMPSON. So you do have 10 doctors that are Navajo? 

Mr. JIM. Less than Navajo. We have more Navajo doctors but 

they are practicing outside because they are treated better and 

they get higher paying—and so on. But we are also beginning to 

talk about medical school and more dosing program so more people 

can begin to think about the health profession. I think that is the 

key to long-term to help medical professionals stay on Navajo to do 

retention there, so we need to do that. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Moran. 

SCHOOL ASSAULT AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PREVENTION

Mr. MORAN. I was wondering about the vote we have coming up 

and it has been called, so I do not want to take long, but let me 

just mention a couple things quickly. 

The Urban Indian Health program eliminated sexual assault and 

domestic violence prevention programs. I wonder what impact that 

had on Urban Indian Health. But I need kind of a quick answer 

because I want to be able to give Ms. McCollum and Ms. Pingree 

an opportunity to ask and Mr. Cole. 

Mr. BARNETT. As far as its impact on the health, it resulted in 

a reduction of about $1 million. So the total urban funding of $43 

million does not include that additional $1 million. So we had a $1 

million loss. 

Mr. MORAN. Okay. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
479 

Mr. BARNETT. And then as far as the impact of that loss, it is 

going to take a little while for us to put the data together. 

Mr. MORAN. As many people fought so hard and particularly Mr. 

Cole to get Indians included in the protection and then that program is eliminated—and this will not be a question, but it does 

seem that that Special Diabetes Program for Indians was quite successful, Mr. Chairman, and it would seem that it might have applicability to other diseases, particularly those that are behaviorally 

oriented. So hopefully, we will hear more about that. But I do not 

want to take up any more time because we are under the pressure 

of a vote taking place right now. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Cole. 

FUNDING BARRIERS

Mr. COLE. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And just a couple observations 

and then kind of a question and then an offer. As I reflect on Dr. 

Roubideaux’s testimony and the testimony of the four witnesses on 

this panel, it is clear we have actually made a difference. I mean, 

we have got big problems but the resources have measurably improved things, which is kind of what you look for. And I think this 

committee can be awfully proud of that, particularly you, Mr. 

Chairman, and you, Mr. Moran, because you guys laid the groundwork and built the bipartisan coalition for that to happen. So we 

know we need to do more. 

I am particularly concerned, and Mr. Barnett, you and I have 

talked about this before, but we clearly have some barriers that 

prevent the flow of money into these urban facilities. We have got 

one in Oklahoma City and one in Tulsa there that are unbelievably 

good, and honestly, if those patients are not taken care of there, 

they are going to flow in probably as indigent patients into other 

areas and not be looked after as well. I would like to sit down with 

you and perhaps Ms. McCollum would work with me on this is my 

fellow co-chairman and see if we can identify what some of these 

structural barriers are. 

And you can count on us to try to do the best we can, everybody 

on this committee to try and help on the funding side. So I am not 

trying to avoid that, but the definitional problems that you mentioned, those kinds of things, and perhaps Dr. Roubideaux would 

help us with that, too, and the Department so that we just try to 

remove bureaucratic barriers that are getting in the way and making it more difficult to function so that when we manage to infuse 

part of the system, we do not overlook—because I recognize how 

many, you know, Native Americans get treatment at those facilities, and a long way away from home in many cases. They are not 

where they can easily access trouble facilities. And we want to 

make sure that network of urban centers are good. So I would like 

to sit down and work with you, see if we can—not necessarily 

something we can do as appropriators, but maybe we can move 

something through the normal legislative process and make this a 

little bit easier. 

Mr. MORAN. We can do anything. 

Mr. COLE. Yeah, well, if they will let us, yes. 

Mr. BARNETT. Well, we will let you. 

Mr. COLE. Okay. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
480 

Mr. SIMPSON. Ms. McCollum. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you. And I totally agree with what we 

are hearing about, you know, the challenges of urban settings for 

dentistry. I have one over here. For dentistry it is even worse and 

the urban settings because we do not have dental clinics to my 

knowledge. 

Mr. BARNETT. Most do not, exactly. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Maybe few do. Yes, mine does not. 

So I want to just kind of bring up another area, and it was told 

in a story by a Native American doctor, Dr. Warren, and it was 

amazing. He talked about how he was working down at the Phoenix Indian Medical Center. He had his grandmother come down living with them to provide elder care. They are both enrolled out of 

Pine Ridge. She was not doing really well. They would not see her 

in the Phoenix Indian Medical Center because they said, well, you 

have to go back to Pine Ridge. And here he is trying to provide intergenerational care which is very good for families, for his children, for him, for her, so she delayed, delayed, delayed, delayed. Finally, she was diagnosed with lung cancer. So if she wanted treatment, she has to go back. 

So this is another issue, another burden that we put, especially 

on families. Here is somebody who went and got a medical degree 

and is working. 

I think it is unethical, so is that something in Indian Country 

that we could work with with the Administration, with Congress 

to kind of come up—and part of that gets to the full funding. I 

know it is a big problem that we will be working on for a while. 

Mr. BARNETT. Yes, and I think our programs would be committed 

to working with IHS and with Congress to explore this. Our programs, because of the authority coming from the Title V of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act are able to serve those individuals that perhaps cannot be served at a tribal or IHS facility because of where they are located. So we can serve those people. The 

problem is we do not have the funding. We especially do not have 

funding for specialty care like cancer, services like that. So I think 

we could explore an option and try to put our heads together. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Ms. Pingree. 

Ms. PINGREE. I will be quick. And I just want to thank you for 

your testimony and the work that you are doing today. I am new 

to the committee but lucky enough to have four tribes in my State 

that I have been able to work with a little. And I know how appreciative they are of Indian Health Services when they work and the 

preventative programs like specialist diabetes care and how worried they are about the sequester and the cuts. So I am wholeheartedly in support of what you are doing. 

And Dr. Fields, I appreciate seeing that we have been adding to 

the roles of dentist. I know that is a huge issue in rural areas and 

making sure we have adequate care. And I just want to echo what 

the chair said that I think when people from the tribes have the 

ability to aspire to being in healthcare themselves and making 

those opportunities available, they are more likely to return to 

their communities. And just to get a brownie point, I want you to 

know that I went to the dentist yesterday, and even though it was 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
481 

a really busy day for me, I was afraid not to go because my dentist 

yells at me if I do not show up. So I have come to understand. 

Mr. FIELDS. That is a good dentist. 

Mr. SIMPSON. He must have gone to The Ohio State University. 

I went to The Washington University in St. Louis. 

Mr. FIELDS. Your chairman on this committee will also yell at 

you if you do not show up. 

Mr. SIMPSON. I appreciate the shortness of this panel, or I apologize for it. We have a vote going on, got about 4 minutes left in 

it, but I want to assure you all that your testimony is important 

and we take it very seriously, and we will be in touch with all of 

you in the coming days and months as we try to put together a bill 

for ’14, and hopefully, we will get to a bill for ’14 at some point in 

time. I appreciate the Dental Association being very active in this 

and trying to address a real need out there in Indian Country. I 

thank all of you. 

Mr. FIELDS. Thank you. 

Mr. BARNETT. Thank you. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
482 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 726 here 81687B.043
483 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 727 here 81687B.044
484 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 728 here 81687B.045
485 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 729 here 81687B.046
486 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 730 here 81687B.047
487 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 731 here 81687B.048
488 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 732 here 81687B.049
489 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 733 here 81687B.050
490 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 734 here 81687B.051
491 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 735 here 81687B.052
492 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 736 here 81687B.053
493 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 737 here 81687B.054
494 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 738 here 81687B.055
495 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 739 here 81687B.056
496 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 740 here 81687B.057
497 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 741 here 81687B.058
498 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 742 here 81687B.059
499 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 054 here 81687B.060
500 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 055 here 81687B.061
501 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 056 here 81687B.062
502 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 057 here 81687B.063
503 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 058 here 81687B.064
504 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 748 here 81687B.065
505 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 749 here 81687B.066
506 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 750 here 81687B.067
507 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 751 here 81687B.068
508 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 752 here 81687B.069
509 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 753 here 81687B.070
510 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 754 here 81687B.071
511 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 755 here 81687B.072
512 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 756 here 81687B.073
513 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 757 here 81687B.074
514 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 758 here 81687B.075
515 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 759 here 81687B.076
516 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 760 here 81687B.077
517 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 761 here 81687B.078
518 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 762 here 81687B.079
519 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 763 here 81687B.080
520 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 764 here 81687B.081
521 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 765 here 81687B.082
522 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 766 here 81687B.083
523 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 767 here 81687B.084
524 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 768 here 81687B.085
525 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 769 here 81687B.086
526 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 770 here 81687B.087
527 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 771 here 81687B.088
528 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 772 here 81687B.089
529 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 773 here 81687B.090
530 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 774 here 81687B.091
531 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 775 here 81687B.092
532 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 776 here 81687B.093
533 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 777 here 81687B.094
534 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 778 here 81687B.095
535 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 779 here 81687B.096
536 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 780 here 81687B.097
537 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 059 here 81687B.098
538 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 60 here 81687C.054
539 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 61 here 81687C.055
540 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 62 here 81687C.056
541 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 63 here 81687C.057
542 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 64 here 81687C.058
543 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 65 here 81687C.059
544 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 66 here 81687C.060
545 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 67 here 81687C.061
546 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 68 here 81687C.062
547 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 69 here 81687C.063
548 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 70 here 81687C.064
549 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 71 here 81687C.065

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(551) 

THURSDAY, APRIL 11, 2013. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 2014 BUDGET 

REQUEST 

WITNESSES 

HON. KEN SALAZAR, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR 

RHEA SUH, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, POLICY, MANAGEMENT, AND 

BUDGET 

PAMELA HAZE, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUDGET, FINANCE, 

PERFORMANCE, AND ACQUISITION 

OPENING REMARKS OF CHAIRMAN SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Secretary, welcome back. You must be a glutton for punishment to want to come back so soon. But as I mentioned earlier, the nominee got confirmed yesterday, as you know, 

in the Senate in an 87-to-11 vote, so have you got a plane ticket 

back to Colorado pretty quickly? 

Secretary SALAZAR. Tomorrow at 1:33. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Well, welcome back. And I appreciate you taking 

the opportunity to come back and present the budget for fiscal year 

2014 before us. I had a long glowing statement I was going to 

make. We are going to have votes at about 1:30 to 1:45 that will 

take us about a half-hour to 45 minutes, which might be problematic. I do not know. So I am not going to go through a long statement other than to say that I have truly enjoyed working with you. 

You have been willing to sit and talk to us and discuss issues and 

you explain your point of view and listen to our point of view sometimes, and so I have truly appreciated that. And frankly, we are 

going to miss you at the Department of Interior and I am going to 

miss working with you in that capacity. 

But I was also going to go into the issue of sequestration and 

what happened in the Senate and the fact that they decided it was 

a good idea to take it down beyond the sequestration level, which 

I thought was devastating, but I am not going to go into that. I was 

going to chew them out a little bit but I hope they are getting the 

message. But it was unnecessary, frankly, to do that. And that was 

one of the reasons, and in fact the reason that I voted against the 

CR even though it was my chairman’s bill. But I told him beforehand that that was problematic what they did with the Department of Interior in the CR and the Senate. 

So without getting into a long statement or anything like that, 

again, welcome. And Mr. Moran? 

OPENING REMARKS OF MR. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Yes, thank you, Mike. And I want to echo your 

statements about the Secretary. I think you have been a terrific 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
552 

Secretary and I am really sorry to see you leave. We are going to 

miss you. 

I do have a few comments. Rick Healy and Tim Aiken did such 

a nice job getting some thoughts together. I am not going to suppress those. But you are known around town for wearing your cowboy hat but, as the Secretary, you have worn many different hats 

that reflect the multitude of responsibilities entrusted to the Interior Department and you have carried out all those responsibilities 

admirably. You put a good staff together, many folks you have kept 

like Pam, and Rhea, all of the folks, David, that we have had the 

privilege of working with have been terrific. 

But speaking of that cowboy hat, we understand there was an 

unveiling recently of your secretarial portrait, and in that portrait 

you are wearing that cowboy hat as well. But also included is your 

family in the picture, and their presence certainly is a recognition 

not only of the support they have provided you put a reminder to 

all of us that the decisions we make today impact our children and 

grandchildren for generations to come. As that great Republican 

President and conservationist Teddy Roosevelt noted, ‘‘the Nation 

behaves well if it treats its natural resources as assets, which it 

must turn over to the next generation increased and not impaired 

in value.’’ 

Mr. Secretary, there is much to like in the fiscal year 2014 budget request for the Interior Department. It carries forth that stewardship legacy that President Roosevelt spoke about. The request 

attempts to turn the corner and put behind us the mindless sequester that we are now dealing with, and I know you share with us 

concern about the impact of these sequester cuts not only on the 

natural and historical resources entrusted to the Department but 

also its impact on your dedicated employees, who in many ways are 

bearing the brunt of this sequester through furloughs and program 

cuts. We can only hope that as fiscal year 2014 goes forward, we 

can restore some sanity to the budget process and provide the Department with the fiscal tools it needs to carry out its important 

work. 

So Mr. Secretary, I want to again congratulate you on a job very 

well done. We will miss you, although we expect that Interior will 

remain in capable hands with your successor Sally Jewell, as Mike 

said, who was just confirmed. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, Ms. Lowey is here as well. 

Mr. SIMPSON. We have the ranking member of the full committee 

with us today. Thank you for coming, Ms. Lowey. 

OPENING REMARKS OF MRS. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I am impressed. I understand this is your last day and you are here before 

this committee, and I regret I have not had the opportunity to work 

directly with you, but there are many good things you did that I 

am well aware of and I will just take a moment or two to thank 

you for your service to your country, to wish you good luck in your 

future endeavors. You look relaxed already, ready to move on. 

I really do want to thank you for your service to your country, 

to the State of Colorado. You really have worked to restore the inVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:45 Jul 20, 2013 Jkt 081687 PO 00000 Frm 00552 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A687P2.XXX A687P2

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
553 

tegrity of the Department of Interior. You have invested in renewable energy on public lands, you have led an ambitious initiative 

to harness offshore wind energy and forged a clear path in response to the Deepwater Horizon incident that rightly prioritized 

the recovery of the Gulf and instituted reforms to help prevent 

such an event from ever happening again. 

I personally want to thank you for your attention to the damage 

on Ellis and Liberty Islands, Gateway National Recreation Area as 

a result of Hurricane Sandy. And turning to the budget, I was 

pleased to see that the Department recognizes the critical role that 

conservation and outdoor recreation can play in promoting job creation and economic growth through the America’s Great Outdoors 

Initiative. However, I am very concerned about the drastic cut to 

the National Heritage Areas program. 

My district is in the Hudson Valley and it utilizes the National 

Heritage area program for tourism and economic development, getting people outdoors, interacting with their community and natural 

environment. It is an important program and popular among my 

constituents. So I am hoping that as I work with my colleagues on 

the Committee and the incoming Secretary to continue to review 

the President’s budget request and ensure that we adequately fund 

the initiatives that are so important for preserving our wild and 

scenic places while promoting economic development and job creation. 

So good luck to you. And I hope we will meet again in the near 

future. Thank you for your service. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Secretary. 

OPENING REMARKS OF SECRETARY SALAZAR

Secretary SALAZAR. Thank you very much, Chairman Simpson 

and Ranking Member Moran, Ranking Member Lowey, Congresswoman Pingree, Congressman Serrano, Congressman Calvert, Congressman Cole, Congresswoman Herrera Beutler, and who do I 

have here? And Congressman Joyce, thank you so much for being 

here. 

Let me first say to this full committee that it has been a true 

honor for me to serve the United States and our citizens and to 

work with all of you. My own frank view of Washington, D.C., and 

our Nation’s capital is that it would work well if the rest of the 

Congress worked the way that this committee works, and so I just 

very much want to applaud you for your bipartisanship here, for 

the great leadership and expertise of both the majority and the minority staff. It has been an honor for us to work with you. 

Pam Haze, who has been here for a long time with multiple Secretaries, continues to guide our budget at the Department of Interior, and today, I am joined also by the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management, and Budget, Rhea Suh. Thank you for your positive comments about them. 

Let me be very short in my opening statement and simply say 

the following. Our work together the last 4 plus years as been truly 

an extraordinary journey. We have done a lot. We have moved forward in a new energy world where we are harnessing conventional 

energy in the Gulf of Mexico and offshore of the United States. So, 

we move forward with a renewable energy revolution on public 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
554 

lands as well as on the ocean floor, our work together as we have 

moved forward with the conservation agenda making sure people 

understand there is an economic nexus between conservation and 

outdoor recreation and a healthy economy. Some six million jobs a 

year come just from outdoor recreation. 

And as you know, Mr. Chairman, Idaho is a great place for national parks and for the public icons that bring people to your 

State. Even in urban places, as you were saying, Congresswoman 

Lowey, when you think about the Statue of Liberty and the people 

who come to New York because of the Statue of Liberty and Gateway and so many other wonderful places there, we appreciate the 

work that all of you have done to help us implement that agenda. 

First Americans and Alaska natives, I cannot think of a more 

wonderful champion than Congressman Cole and the work of this 

committee in addressing Cobell and water rights settlements 

around the country, law and order issues, and education. You have 

been a champion supported by the members of this committee as 

you have moved forward on that agenda. 

Water, I am proud of the work that we have done. There are a 

number of different initiatives on water, understanding that we 

have some very tough times coming up, especially in key basins 

like the Colorado River basin and the Rio Grande basin. It will be 

a continuing challenge for us in the future. 

Finally, our commitment to young people. Because of the leadership of this committee, we have been able to provide jobs over the 

last 4 years in the 21st Century Conservation Corps to some 84,000 

young people around America. I am very proud of what we have 

been able to do in that vein as well. 

Now, fast forward to where we are today, and part of the reason 

I wanted personally to come to the Committee in the waning hours 

of my time as Secretary of Interior is to tell you that I am concerned. I am concerned, frankly, because we will not be able to do 

the job that has been assigned to us by the United States Government unless we are able to get the appropriate resources into the 

Department of Interior. As you noted in your opening comments, 

Chairman Simpson, we at the Department today are in the ditch, 

frankly, because of the sequester, and then you include on top of 

that over $200 million in cuts from the Continuing Resolution. 

So to put that in the most stark of terms for me as the manager 

of the Department of Interior, we essentially are having to take an 

almost 10 percent cut just to implement the sequester in the remaining months that we have in this budget year between now and 

the end of October. When you add on top of that another $200 million plus in cuts, it starts having real consequences all across the 

United States of America. 

Now, I will only point to two or three examples that I think will 

tell that story. One is our payments to the States, Payments in 

Lieu of Taxes, and Mineral Revenue Payments that go out to many 

of the States around the country. You know, Governor Mead from 

Wyoming is not happy and we are not able to send out the money 

that Wyoming believes it is entitled to, but under the sequester we 

cannot do that. It is having impacts throughout the United States 

where we have to send out those payments to state and local governments, and they will be impacted significantly this year. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
555 

Number two, here in Washington and New York and in San 

Francisco and places all around the country where our United 

States Park Police stands up to provide law and order to some of 

the most important icons and most important events in our Nation, 

we are seeing what is happening with the Park Police today in a 

very dramatic fashion. On average, our Park Police will have to 

take 14 days of furlough between now and October 1. That is 14 

days of furlough without pay. The consequence of that is whether 

it is the Statue of Liberty or whether it is the 30 million visitors 

that come to the National Mall every year here in Washington or 

those visitors that go to Gateway, to Golden Gate in San Francisco, 

we are not going to be able to provide the same level of security 

because we will not have the same kind of presence that we have 

had in the past. The Park Police, where we have made tremendous 

headway in recruiting some of the most highly talented people, including veterans who are returning from Afghanistan and Iraq, 

into the ranks of the United States Park Police, we have canceled 

the class for this fiscal year because we simply cannot afford it. 

Finally, just to show another place where I think the cuts have 

been declining and are having an impact, you have joined me in 

what I think is a moral undertaking in terms of providing opportunity for young people to come and work in national parks and 

wildlife refuges and the Bureau of Reclamation and all of our facilities around the country. I am very proud of the fact that those opportunities have been available because of the resources that you 

have provided. Over 22,000 young people were hired last year. This 

fiscal year, there are going to be several thousand less, somewhere 

between 3,000 and 5,000 fewer young people we will be able to hire 

to help do the great work, on the Hudson or the great work at some 

of the wildlife refuges in Oklahoma, wherever we are around the 

country. The sequester, coupled with the $200 million plus cut in the CR 

has made it very difficult for the Department of Interior. As I said 

in my informal meeting with this committee a few weeks ago, I 

think the number one issue that faces my successor Sally Jewell 

is the fiscal crunch that we are having to go through at this point 

in time. 

Finally, just a word about this budget. The President’s budget is 

a good one. It is a thoughtful and a balanced one from my point 

of view. We worked very hard in putting it together, and if that 

budget is adopted by the United States Congress, it will take us 

out of the ditch that we find ourselves in and put us on a course 

that is more sustainable to fulfill the missions assigned to the Department of the Interior. 

Putting it in the macro sense because I know many of you on this 

committee and certainly the staff on this committee know the history of the budget of the Department of Interior. But right now, the 

budget we are dealing with today at Interior is essentially the 

budget that funded all of our programs back in about 2006 and 

2007. 

Consider the growth that has taken place in the United States 

of America from that time until today. If you consider how much 

more activity we are doing with respect to energy, both oil and gas 

as well as renewable, if you think about places like the Bakken forVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:45 Jul 20, 2013 Jkt 081687 PO 00000 Frm 00555 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A687P2.XXX A687P2

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
556 

mation where we are trying to assign BLM employees to help in 

the permitting there in the Dakotas, it is tough to deal with the 

realities of the responsibilities that have been placed on the Department of Interior today when we are facing such a shortage in 

terms of the resources now in 2013. 

The 2014 budget proposal helps us get back on the right track 

and I hope that this committee, Mr. Chairman and ranking member, seriously considers the proposal that the President has put on 

the table. 

[The statement of Ken Salazar follows:] 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
557 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 796 here 81687B.099
558 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 797 here 81687B.100
559 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 798 here 81687B.101
560 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 799 here 81687B.102
561 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 800 here 81687B.103
562 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 801 here 81687B.104
563 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 802 here 81687B.105
564 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 803 here 81687B.106
565 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 804 here 81687B.107
566 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 805 here 81687B.108
567 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 806 here 81687B.109
568 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 807 here 81687B.110
569 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 808 here 81687B.111
570 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 809 here 81687B.112
571 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 810 here 81687B.113
572 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 811 here 81687B.114
573 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 812 here 81687B.115
574 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 813 here 81687B.116
575 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 814 here 81687B.117
576 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 815 here 81687B.118
577 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 816 here 81687B.119
578 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 817 here 81687B.120
579 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 818 here 81687B.121
580 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 819 here 81687B.122
581 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 820 here 81687B.123
582 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 821 here 81687B.124
583 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 822 here 81687B.125
584 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 823 here 81687B.126
585 

BUDGET REDUCTIONS

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. And since you have 

been frank with us, I will be frank with you, too. I happen to agree 

with you that we got some real challenges and some real problems 

that are being faced because obviously sequestration and other 

things. We continue to focus on cutting spending on the 1⁄3 of the 

budget, the discretionary spending that we have been cutting. And 

that seems like all we ever do is just keep cutting that 1⁄3 of the 

budget and pretty soon you get down to where, under the budget 

resolution that passed, I do not know what our allocation will be 

at the $966 billion level down from $1042 billion but it will not be 

pretty. And I do not know that we can pass a budget at that level. 

And at some point in time—and I would like your thoughts on 

this—we have got to start asking ourselves are we going to try to 

do everything we do in this budget and do—I am trying to think 

of a good word—the word I used you would not want on the web— 

a less-than-good job at doing everything, or do we come to the point 

where we say there are just some things we are not going to do 

and eliminate them and at least concentrate on the parts that we 

do do well? And that is a tough choice. 

When you look at our entire budget, it is not only the Department of Interior, it is the Forest Service, it is a lot of smaller agencies like the National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for Humanities, the Woodrow Wilson Center, the Holocaust Museum, you can go through all these other ones, you could 

eliminate all those and you are not going to get a ton of money to 

try to fund some of these other programs within the Department 

of Interior, but I think we are getting to the point where we are 

going to have to make that kind of determination about where we 

are headed. Or do we take some functions that Department of Interior does and say we are just not going to do those anymore? I do 

not know. 

It is a frustrating situation we find ourselves in and I understand the need that we have got to get this budget deficit under 

control. We have got to quit managing the budget deficit from appropriation to appropriation and from fiscal crisis to fiscal crisis 

and the debt ceiling to debt ceiling and put together something 

that is in the long-term interest of solving this problem so that we 

can continue to do those things that we should do. I do not know 

that we will get there, at least very quickly. 

But I do have some concerns with some of your budget obviously. 

One of the things that happened during the consideration of the 

CR is the Senate decided we did not really need to fund wildfires 

at the level we had put in there, which means come fire season we 

are going to be draining other accounts that are already low to 

fund wildfire suppression. And then within the budget we have 

also reduced the proposed hazardous fuels reduction by $87 million, 

which means we are not addressing the long-term problem and trying to reduce forest fire costs. What are your thoughts on that? 

Secretary SALAZAR. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I very much agree 

with your broad assessment of what is happening here with this 

budget and the fiscal debate that is going on, and I think that is 

why it is so important for leaders like yourself and others to come 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
586 

together with a long-term solution so we stop the stop and start 

going from one crisis to another as we deal with these budgeting 

issues. It is very difficult to run a government and manage operations when you have to go through the kind of fiscal times we 

have been through. 

I also agree that when you are looking at only the discretionary 

part of the budget, it is a very small amount. If you look at the 

Department of Interior’s dollars that come from the appropriations 

process, I understand from Pam it is less than 1 percent of the entire Federal budget, and yet it has this kind of consequence all 

across America. Dealing with these issues in the broad frame 

which you suggest I think is something that very much does have 

to be done. 

WILDLAND FIRE

Specifically with respect to the Wildland Fire Program, I am concerned, and that is another issue to watch carefully because of the 

consequence of the sequester and the CR. When we just think 

about last summer and the huge fires in Idaho monitored out of 

Boise, the great fires we saw in almost every one of the western 

States including my home State of Colorado. Our expectation is the 

wildfire season is going to be even worse this year than it was last 

year because of the drought conditions that we are seeing throughout that entire area of the Rocky Mountains, as well as into the 

western part of the country. The consequence of not having enough 

money to be able to fight those fires and to do the preventive side 

of things with respect to hazardous fuels reduction is something 

that is of great concern. Our hope is that as we move forward we 

can find a way of addressing it. 

Mr. SIMPSON. What do you do when you’ve got accounts that are 

already substantially reduced from what they have been in the 

past and all of a sudden you have these major wildfires and you 

have to start draining some of those accounts? What does that do 

to the other functions that the Department of Interior has to deal 

with? 

And one thing you did not mention that also concerns me but I 

am sure it concerns you also is that this committee in a bipartisan 

way has tried to meet our obligations in Indian health, and Indian 

education. And after the CR, frankly, we have not been able to 

fully fund the contract support costs that we have an obligation to 

do and we put money in last year’s budget for one additional 

school. Imagine that, one additional school in Indian Country, and 

we had that taken out in the CR by the Senate. It is problematic. 

But it is going to have a lasting impact. 

It is easy to vote for a really serious conservative slash-and-burn 

budget on the theoretical, but then when you get down to individual appropriations and what it means, I do not know that we 

can pass any of our appropriation bills at the level that we have 

set our overall budget at. 

So anyway, Mr. Moran. 

Mr. MORAN. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
587 

FRACKING RULE

In January, BLM pulled back on its proposed rules on fracking. 

It said that it would issue a revised proposal by March 31. I do not 

think we have got that. I believe that the deadline has passed. 

What is the status of that proposed rule? And maybe you can just 

give little insight into how it is going to balance protection of the 

environment with its economic growth objectives. 

Secretary SALAZAR. Congressman Moran, it is a matter we are 

taking very seriously and have been working very hard. We have 

a proposed rule that would address disclosure of chemicals used in 

fracking. It would address wellbore integrity to make sure that 

water quality is protected and would address flow back of water 

into the hydraulic fracking process. We believe hydraulic fracking 

can be done safely but we believe the rules we have been working 

on will allow us to make sure we are fully developing the oil and 

natural gas potential of our public lands. The rule is imminent and 

I expect my successor will be announcing it in the very near future. 

OIL AND GAS REFORMS

Mr. MORAN. Very good. You have got a number of legislative proposals for the Federal Oil and Gas Program. Can you just very 

briefly elaborate on those a little bit to see what we might be able 

to reflect in the Interior? 

Secretary SALAZAR. There are a number of them. 

Mr. MORAN. Just the principle. 

Secretary SALAZAR. The principle essentially that we are working 

on, and is included in the budget, is making sure what we are 

doing is achieving the goal of getting a fair return to the taxpayers 

and doing it in a cost-efficient way. For example, one of the components you will find in the budget is royalty simplification. We believe that through royalty simplification we can go ahead and find 

significant additional dollars that would get a better return back 

to the taxpayers. The principle that is driving the legislative proposals relating to oil and gas here are the efforts to try to get a 

fair return to the American taxpayer. 

Mr. MORAN. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I know we have got a vote, so 

I do not want to take any longer. We will try to get in as many 

questions as you can. So that will be up to Mr. Calvert. 

Mr. CALVERT. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Salazar. And I thank you 

for your service. I appreciate the sacrifice you have gone through 

the last few years. I am sure you are looking forward to getting 

back to Colorado. 

WILDLAND FIRE

We mentioned wildfire, and of course, from California we have 

had our share of fires, too. And the hazardous fuel program has 

been, in my opinion, very successful and it is cost-effective because 

for every dollar in reducing these hazardous fuels is I think at the 

end of the game it costs a lot less to not have a fire than to have 

a fire. And we saw that in the San Bernardino National Forest in 

California and other places. 

And I see the budget is cutting it by $87 million, which is a substantial cut, almost to half of that account. And I know the budget 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
588 

is under a lot of stress, but saying that these fires cost a lot of 

money once they start, we have got a fuel that has been built up 

over the years that is all over the West, and I hope you take another look at that as we move through this process that we can 

work together on some kind of modification on that. 

NATURAL GAS PRODUCTION

The other issue, of course, is one of the great things that has 

happened, as you mentioned in your testimony, is natural gas production in the United States. And most of that increase, as you 

know, is on private lands. We are still having difficulties getting 

into public lands for natural gas production. There are a lot of companies in Europe and Asia that quite frankly want to go back to 

the United States and to hire people again because our natural gas 

prices are now significantly lower both in Europe and Asia, chemical companies, other types of industries that are dependent on natural gas. So I would hope that we could work towards streamlining 

the permit process for natural gas production on some of these public properties. 

And with that, I will leave this for your comment. 

Secretary SALAZAR. If I can I will be very, very quick. One of the 

areas, Congressman Calvert, that we are most proud of is the fact 

we have implemented truly an all-of-the-above energy strategy. 

Even having lived through the oil spill, which you lived through 

with me day by day, our production is up. We have more rigs. I 

think it is 10 more rigs working in the Gulf of Mexico today than 

before the oil spill. We are continuing to lease significant acreage 

on the onshore for both oil and gas production. We have the stats 

here that there are millions and millions of acres that are under 

lease already to oil and gas companies. There are about 7,000 permits that oil and gas companies have today in hand ready to move 

forward. We are finding ways to streamline the process even further. 

So some of the proposals, and partly in response to Congressman 

Moran’s question as well, one of the things we have been trying to 

do is to move to electronic permitting because much of the delay 

is caused in receiving the permit, for both offshore as well as onshore, has to do with the paperwork that goes back and forth. In 

today’s world of electronic communications, we can significantly 

shorten the amount of time it will take to process permits. We hope 

to be able to implement that program under this budget. 

HYDRAULIC FRACTURING

Mr. CALVERT. And just one last comment—I know you probably 

know 2⁄3 of the frackable oil in the United States is located in the 

State of California. It has been there a long time. It is heavy crude, 

expensive to extract. California, you may have read, had some financial difficulties and we are hoping that we can work with the 

Department of Interior and others to obtain that resource to help 

the State of California and the country forward. So that is the last 

comment. I thought I would point that out. 

Secretary SALAZAR. Thank you. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Mrs. Lowey. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
589 

HERITAGE AREAS

Mrs. LOWEY. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, as you know, the National Heritage areas will be funded at $9 million in the request, 

a 50 percent reduction. Earlier this year, the National Park Service 

released a report stating that the 49 heritage areas contribute 

$12.9 billion annually to the national economy, contribute to 

148,000 jobs generating $1.2 billion in federal tax receipts. In my 

region, the Hudson River Valley heritage area contributes $538 

million to the State’s economy, supports 6,530 jobs, generates $66.6 

million in tax revenue. Frankly, I was very surprised when I saw 

that cut. Considering the budget’s emphasis on supporting another 

great program, the Great Outdoor Initiative, and we are all trying 

to focus on jobs, economic opportunity, if you can explain to us why 

the proposed cut to the program is so drastic, and are you as concerned as some of us are about that? 

Secretary SALAZAR. This is a tough choices budget, and one of the 

things that I did not go into detail on are the hundreds of millions 

of dollars of cuts that we have made to the Department of Interior. 

It includes everything from travel to conferences to a whole host 

of efficiencies that we have been able to find. Having said that, 

when you look at specific programs, Congresswoman Lowey, I can 

tell you that this one for me is a very difficult and painful and indeed even a tearful one because I have been a champion of National Heritage Areas. I was a promoter and successfully completed 

some when I was a U.S. Senator. I do strongly believe the economic 

statistics which you use are absolutely correct. 

Is $9 million enough for what I think are 49 heritage areas that 

we have around the country? The answer to that is absolutely not. 

It is my hope that somehow we can get to a broad fiscal agreement 

that allows us to invest in these kinds of economic creators because 

I have visited many of them and I know the impact they have on 

job creation and local communities, as you explained it in your 

area. 

Mrs. LOWEY. Well, I will repeat your statement over and over 

again, so hopefully, we can adjust that because it is a real concern 

to many of us. 

HURRICANE SANDY RECOVERY

Another point I just wanted to bring up I have been so grateful 

for all the work that has been done with the Army Corps and local 

communities rebuilding beaches and dunes in protected areas. I 

just wonder if there are any issues or disputes over how to proceed. 

Are you satisfied with the speed of recovery? Is there something 

else we can do? And do you have enough money in there to complete the job? 

Secretary SALAZAR. The answer is yes, we do because of the action that you all took to provide the recovery monies for Hurricane 

Sandy. You will be very pleased that the work that will happen in 

New York and along the Atlantic Coast will address the kind of improvements that need to be made there. 

I will note only in passing for the entire committee that I believe 

that often in front of this committee I have spoken about the Everglades as one of the most significant conservation efforts we have 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
590 

going on in America. What we will see in the years ahead will be 

the entire conservation effort that is now underway in Jamaica Bay 

and New York and all along the Atlantic Coast. 

In addition to that, Congressman Simpson and members of the 

committee, what will happen in the Gulf of Mexico and the restoration of the Gulf and the Mississippi River Delta will probably become the most significant conservation restoration effort in the history of humankind, and that is because of the penalties that will 

be flowing into conservation as a result of the oil spill. The Fish 

and Wildlife Foundation is now in charge, working closely with the 

States and already have about $2.6 billion in the restoration effort. 

We have another billion dollars on early restoration from BP. My 

expectation is that there is a lot more to come. 

Mrs. LOWEY. Well, thank you so very much. And thank you 

again, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking, for all your good work. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Yes, thank you. We have votes on. We have about 

2 minutes left on the vote so we need to go over and do that. Some 

members have questions, you may want to stay around for a little 

bit. 

Secretary SALAZAR. For you, Congressman, because it is my last 

hearing I will gladly do whatever you say. 

Mr. SIMPSON. I do not know what it is but every time you come 

they call votes. We will go vote and be back as quickly as possible. 

Thank you. 

Secretary SALAZAR. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

[Recess.] 

WILD HORSES AND BURROS

Mr. MORAN. The budget includes $2 million I think for research 

on wild horses and burros for the National Academy of Science to 

do the study. I really am interested to know what the Department’s 

long-term plan to humanely deal with wild horses and burros is so 

that we avoid all the fits and starts that have really plagued this 

program, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary SALAZAR. Ranking Member Moran, the work on wild 

horses and burros is something which we have taken very seriously 

from day one. The Bureau of Land Management has put out a plan 

that we continue to implement. We have two north stars to guide 

us with the wild horse and burro plan. The first is that horses are 

treated humanely and we try to do that in every way we can; number two, that we are also protecting the public range. We have a 

problem. The problem is the number of horses we have in many of 

the areas of the West are simply too many for the amount of forage 

available. The State of Nevada, for example, has about 17,000 more 

wild horses and burros than can be carried in that range. So it is 

a problem which we have been working on for a long time. 

We have implemented programs to put birth-control measures in 

place. Some of them have been effective and what we are doing 

now is also looking at the National Academy of Sciences as we have 

brought them in to help us figure out what the solutions are for 

the long-term. The request in the budget for $2 million is to help 

us with the National Academy of Sciences to address the problem 

for the long-term. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
591 

Mr. MORAN. I support that. I sometimes wonder the extent of the 

commitment that BLM shares with that objective, but, you know, 

I will not pursue it. And I am certainly not going to give you a hard 

time on your last day, Mr. Secretary. You have been fine but we 

have had some problems with BLM’s commitment to that program. 

We will see what the $2 million study yields and I hope it will do 

something we can all embrace. Some of the problem I think is we 

have severely diminished the rangeland that is available, but there 

is also a population control problem. I do not want to see a solution, one of slaughtering the young and healthy horses, particularly 

the wild Mustangs. 

Secretary SALAZAR. Well, we have, if I may, Ranking Member 

Moran, have made progress. For example, just this last year BLM 

opened a wild horse sanctuary in the State of Wyoming where we 

have several hundred wild horses. We will continue to work very 

hard on it. It is an ongoing issue and one I am certain my successor will be dealing with for the next 4 years. 

Mr. MORAN. And they will get a gut full of it. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Do we do any of adoptions out of this program? 

Many? 

Secretary SALAZAR. We do. Chairman Simpson, the adoption program of the BLM is a great program and there are many, many 

horses adopted over time. There has been an issue the last couple 

of years because horse adoptions are down in large part because 

the cost of feed has gone so sky high. When you are thinking about 

adopting a horse the requirements are you have to take care of the 

horse, you have to sign up and make sure you have the capacity 

to take care of the horse, and fewer people are signing up in part 

because of the cost of hay these days, as you know in Idaho. 

SECURE RURAL SCHOOLS AND PILT

Mr. SIMPSON. One of the things I heard about this last week 

when I was out in Idaho the last couple weeks visiting with some 

county commissioners are two things that they are really concerned 

about with sequestration—Secure Rural Schools funding, which 

comes out of the Forest Service, and PILT payments and the reduction that is going to occur to the counties. What is the amount of 

the reduction going to be? 

Secretary SALAZAR. Chairman Simpson, the amount is significant, and I personally communicated this to the governors who 

were here for the National Association meeting, as well as the 

Western Governors when they met in my office. Let me have Rhea 

or Pam give you the specifics on the numbers. 

Ms. HAZE. We will make PILT payments in June. We notified the 

county folks and the governors that the reduction to PILT will be 

5.1 percent, or about 20 million nationwide, and that will be spread 

across all 1,900 county payments. We are in the process of calculating the payments so we do not know precisely county by county 

yet. 

Mr. SIMPSON. And it will be about 5.1 percent? 

Ms. HAZE. Yes. 

Mr. SIMPSON. And then you throw on top of that a lot of the 

school districts and counties that get Secure Rural Schools funding 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
592 

from the Forest Service and that is another cut by point something 

percent or $18 million, I think, nationwide. 

Ms. HAZE. For Secure Rural Schools, which BLM pays, the total 

amount was 40 million, that was a reduction of 5.1 percent or 2 

million. We made most of the payment. 

Mr. SIMPSON. I had thought that BLM did Secure Rural Schools, 

too. 

Ms. HAZE. They do. They do the 18 Oregon counties. 

Mr. SIMPSON. I was thinking of BLM as that rangeland out there 

and Forest Service as that tree land out there but I forget that 

sometimes they intermix. 

Ms. HAZE. Yes, we have got a little piece. The Forest Service has 

a much bigger piece. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Yes. Ms. Pingree. We were just asking some questions while we were waiting for people to come back. 

Ms. PINGREE. I was finding my way back. 

Well, Secretary Salazar, thank you again. I know we had a 

chance to informally thank you and people have heaped on the 

praise this afternoon, as well they should, but I just wanted to once 

again thank you for your public service, the work you have done 

with us in Maine and the chance to get to know you a little bit in 

this line of work. 

WILDLIFE REFUGES BUDGET

I will just ask a couple of questions because there are a lot of 

things I am still getting to know. In looking over the budget, one 

of the things I am interested in is the wildlife refuge budgets. We 

have I think 10 or 11 of them in the State of Maine and some of 

them like the Rachel Carson Refuge are spectacular and covering 

a great part of a fairly populated area of our State. So I am grateful that there is a slight actual increase in the budget but I know 

there is a deep level of need in there. I am just kind of encouraged 

but also concerned about how are we going to be able to accomplish 

all of our goals? I know we are talking about a lot of areas where 

there are deep cuts but can you give me a little bit of background 

on what we are doing with that and what we are going to be able 

to do with that amount of money? 

Secretary SALAZAR. Congresswoman, the budget that we have 

put forward for 2014 would get the funding to levels that we can 

live with in the United States Fish and Wildlife Service refuge system. The funding cuts we are laboring with right now under both 

sequestration, as well as the Senate CR causes significant problems 

for us. We are having to determine what kind of visitation hours, 

cutbacks, and indeed potential closure of some of these wildlife refuges. But the President’s budget itself as presented to the Congress 

yesterday will get us to a level where we feel comfortable operating 

the refuge system. 

Ms. PINGREE. Great. So we will be able to eliminate some of the 

cutbacks in hours and then the security cuts and things that are 

in the sequester? 

Secretary SALAZAR. Indeed. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
593 

CLIMATE CHANGE

Ms. PINGREE. Great. Another area that I am interested in that 

you addressed a little bit but also of great concern to us in Maine 

and one of my concerns nationally is the work we are doing or not 

doing on climate change. And I am interested to see if you can get 

me a little background about some of the things that USGS is 

doing around climate change and how we are spending our money 

to work on this issue and some of the things I can tell people back 

home that we are actually trying to do to deal with the big challenges that we are already facing, particularly given that I represent so many coastal communities, and the impact on our fisheries and raising ocean levels already being felt. 

Secretary SALAZAR. It is a great question. I am going to have Assistant Secretary Rhea Suh follow-up but let me introduce the response. 

Our work at Interior is huge on climate change because we really 

are the ones who are at the front end of some of the impacts of climate change, whether it is a drought and dealing with the bark 

beetle issues in places like Idaho and Colorado, or whether it is the 

rising sea levels in places along the Atlantic or in the Gulf of Mexico to disappearance of the glaciers at Glacier National Park, which 

will be gone by 2020. What is happening to the arctic seas and in 

the North Slope of Alaska where I have spent a lot of time, you 

see the dramatic impacts of climate change on the lands, on wildlife, and on the people who live in those areas are being impacted 

by climate change. 

We know, for example, the water supply issues which are so important to all of the States that share the Colorado River and the 

Rio Grande River shared by Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas that 

we will see declines in precipitation there that will be as high as 

20 percent in the years ahead. In fact, in the Rio Grande basin 

today we are seeing the driest period of record in 1,000 years. 

Ms. PINGREE. Amazing. 

Secretary SALAZAR. It takes you back to the times when people 

wondered what happened to the Anasazis and what happened to 

those populations who lived at the time. 

So our job at Interior really is to develop the science and we do 

that through our Climate Science Centers through USGS and then 

also working with our other agencies making sure that we are implementing the changes needed to be able to adapt to the changing 

climate. Rhea works on these issues so I want her to also respond 

to the question. 

Ms. SUH. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Let me just point out a couple of pieces of the USGS budget in 

particular that are directly applicable to your question. The first 

piece that Secretary Salazar mentioned is a $14.5 million increase 

to the WaterSMART program. This is the program that enables 

USGS to look at water availability and to make more accurate projections of availability certainly in the Western States with respect 

to climate change but throughout the United States in terms of 

both monitoring of current water and projections of fresh water 

availability moving forward. That is one key part of how we are 

looking at climate change. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
594 

The other, as the Secretary mentioned, is our work in the Climate Science Centers that are collaborative with universities 

across the country. These are long-term scientific efforts to really 

try to answer more of the specific questions associated with the climate change impacts to the United States. What I will say is in 

addition to the broader science and more basic science research 

that is undertaken by the Climate Science Centers, we have robust 

adaptive management efforts happening with all the land management agencies. Specifically with the Landscape Conservation Cooperatives, run primarily through the Fish and Wildlife Service, we 

are working hard and in a very collaborative manner to try to address the very real, very immediate consequences of climate change 

on the landscapes and be proactive about how we reorient our management systems around them. 

Ms. PINGREE. Great. Well, thank you for that. I know that you 

do not have domain over the fisheries but I just want to say quickly I had a group of fishermen and fish scientists in my office last 

week and I represent a lot of coastal communities. Lobster fishing 

is an $80 million business. It is a huge impact to our communities 

and to our fisheries business. Given the fact that there has been 

about 2 or 3 degrees rise in the ocean, which I think does not 

sound like a lot, especially since the water in Maine is only about 

60 degrees, you know, you think it is kind of a good thing, but our 

lobsters shed early last year. It was devastating to the industry because we could not process them or sell them. 

This year, it looks like they are already starting to shed, which 

is 5 to 6 months early. People are throwing up their hands in confusion not knowing exactly what is going on and how could it happen so quickly. But it could potentially have a huge impact, as well 

as ocean acidification, which is already impacting our clams’ abilities to make shells. 

And, you know, all of these things that I think we keep thinking 

are way out in the future are already about to harm a lot of our 

communities. Some of the southern Maine communities are already 

losing their fisheries altogether because the species are moving 

north. So there are just so many impacts that I know some belong 

in one department, some belong in another, but it all has to do 

with something complicated going on with the weather where there 

is not enough water in some places, too much in others, and some 

of it is just too warm. 

So anyway, I appreciate the work you are doing. Thank you for 

your thoughts and I look forward to continuing work with the Department. 

Secretary SALAZAR. Thank you very much. 

HAZARDOUS FUELS

Mr. SIMPSON. Before I go to Tom, I was just handed a note and 

I would like your response to this. OMB, my favorite agency—and 

you will never have to deal with them again—is that a wonderful— 

you know, this is a good day, is not it? OMB told the staff today 

that there is not enough evidence that hazardous fuels removal is 

effective. Do you agree with this? 

Secretary SALAZAR. No. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
595 

Mr. SIMPSON. Okay. I do not know that they have ever been out 

and looked at hazardous fuels reduction on the ground. Where they 

would come up with that analysis is bizarre to me, which is why 

I do not want them managing public lands, which is why I do not 

want them doing anything with the budgets frankly. But Tom? 

Mr. COLE. I just want to say for the record it is bipartisan. It 

does not matter who the administration is, it is always the same. 

INDIAN COUNTRY

I have some questions but I do want in the record to echo some 

of the remarks the chairman and ranking member made. And I, 

Mr. Secretary, just really—I was thinking last night about this session and I thought of all the things that you have been part of just 

in Indian Country. I thought of Cobell and I thought of tribal law 

and order and, you know, surface leasing where you guys have 

done some really incredible things and the tribal provisions in 

VAWA and frankly the whole attitude of the administration in 

terms of the Tribal Nations Summit and how it reached Indian 

Country, and it is exceptional. 

I cannot think of another Secretary of the Interior that has done 

more for Indian Country and has done more to empower individual 

Indians and tribal governments. This was never a paternalistic 

type of relationship. It was always about keeping the commitments 

from the federal side and what can we do to try and make you 

more self-sufficient, more self-governing, more able to look after 

your own citizens? 

It has been an extraordinary effort on your part. You have had 

a great team around you—Pam, Rhea, and David are just exceptional. You have had two excellent assistant secretaries in Larry 

Echo Hawk and now in Kevin Washburn. And I just want to tell 

you just thanks for an extraordinary job. And I think that is a bipartisan sense on this committee, and boy, it is certainly felt and 

known widely in Indian Country. So just thank you for what you 

have done. 

Last point on this, you know, because I always seem to focus obviously on the Native American stuff, but that is true across the 

board. Look, I am very aware of the mess you inherited, particularly in mineral leasings when you walked in the door and some 

of the shenanigans that had gone on there. You guys tackled that 

professionally and cleaned up a real mess for this country that had 

not happened on your watch for sure. And so I think across the 

board you have been exceptionally transparent. You have always 

been accountable. 

You have worked with this committee, been very forthright with 

us and very professional and, you know, I just think of the things 

you done in Indian Country and then I start thinking of all of these 

other multiple responsibilities that you have. To manage 20 percent of the land surface of the United States with, as Pam said, 

that is pretty extraordinary. I will match your management record 

dollars per management achievement with anybody else in the Federal Government or anybody else that has come before you. So just 

thank you for an exceptional job. 

Secretary SALAZAR. If I may, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Cole, 

in all humility, the reality is our progress in all those areas has 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
596 

come about in large part because of your personal leadership, your 

attendance at the annual tribal conferences that we have had with 

the President, your leadership on each of those pieces of legislation. 

It frankly would not happen without you. And I do think that that 

whole area is one where we as Americans, Democrats and Republicans, can celebrate where you showed a tremendous amount of bipartisan cooperation, and I think it is a great template for so many 

other issues that the Congress works on all the time. So my hat 

is off to you. In fact, I am probably going to get one of my hats and 

give it to you on the range in Oklahoma. 

Mr. COLE. I tell you what, cowboy hats on Indians is a pretty 

risky deal where I am from. But I would be honored to frame it. 

SUBSURFACE LEASING

I do have two things and they are not directly budget-related. I 

have some more questions if we have more time, but there are two 

areas I would like to get your thoughts on the record both for the 

Congress and for your successor because these are areas where, 

when, I know you have been working on subsurface leasing rights 

for drives where, again, I think you have done groundbreaking 

work on the surface leasing rights. I would like sort of a review of 

that because I do think some of our poorest tribes are sitting on 

resources that, if they can develop them, are going to make an 

enormous difference in the lives of their citizens and make a great 

contribution to the country in energy independence and independence in other areas. So kind of where are we at on that? 

CARCIERI

The second area—and I want to particularly commend Mr. 

Moran and Mr. Simpson on this. We were able because of both of 

them in this committee to deal with Carcieri. Now, we did it in a 

pretty unconventional way. Obviously, we were legislating on an 

appropriations bill. I remember when then-Chairman Moran was 

kind enough that we were over our Indian thing and he said if you 

will propose it, I will do it. I think we should do it but I better go 

call Simpson. And I did and I came back and I said, well, I would 

like to do this. And he said, well, we are legislating on an appropriations bill. We do not do that, unless we do. I am all for it. And 

we kind of got out of here with a 14-to-0 vote and got through and 

we got it over to the other side. 

But this is an issue that continues to fester. And I know that this 

committee, if it were allowed to do it, would probably do exactly 

what it did before. But I would like your thoughts because I am 

beginning to hear more and more from tribes and it is exactly what 

everybody predicted was going to be happening. They are being 

harassed by state and local governments. They are facing incredible litigation. They have got property they thought was in trust for 

decades and people are raising issues about. You have got to somehow keep track of what are now effectively two different kinds of 

Indian tribes because you can do certain things for some that you 

cannot do—at least we have questions as whether you can do for 

others. 

So your thoughts on not only what we should do—I think we 

would probably agree on that—but particularly for the record the 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
597 

kinds of challenges you see for both tribal nations. I think it would 

be helpful for people to hear that. 

Secretary SALAZAR. Thank you, Congressman Cole. On Carcieri 

it is high priority to get it fixed. The President is strongly behind 

getting it fixed. The Department has specified a supportive fix and 

we appreciate all the efforts you yourself personally have exercised 

along with members of this committee. It does create significant 

problems because you end up having to go through an analysis of 

the tribes. Are you a pre-Carcieri tribe or a post-Carcieri tribe and 

the complexity involved in terms of tribal trust lands and it just 

makes it even more difficult. It is something very important, something included actually in the 2014 budget. Hopefully, it is something the United States Congress will act on as soon as possible. 

SUBSURFACE LEASING

On subsurface mineral rights and especially with respect to energy, you will find in the budget that there are some additional 

funds requested to be able to do more with energy on Indian lands. 

My own view is informed very much by my multiple visits to North 

Dakota to the Bakken and to the Three Affiliated Tribes at Fort 

Berthold. When I went there 4 years ago, it was a dead zone on 

the reservation because there was no development that had occurred. Today, if you go to the Three Affiliated Tribes, there is 

huge economic development that is lifting up the tribe to have a 

great economic future. 

In addition to that, I was at Fort Berthold signing the documents 

that allowed the Three Affiliated Tribes to move forward with the 

first oil and gas refinery I believe in the last 40 years, on the mainland of the United States. My understanding is that they are getting ready to move forward to do groundbreaking on that here in 

the next several months. 

Away from the Bakken and the Three Affiliated Tribes, I believe 

there is huge potential because of the 54 million acres held in trust 

by the United States on behalf of tribes and how we can develop 

a much more robust energy program for both conventional, as well 

as renewable, is something that is a very high priority for me and 

for Assistant Secretary Washburn. I am certain they will continue 

to be of high priority for my successor Sally Jewell. This is a presidential initiative which is a high priority to the President. I know 

it is a high priority personally to almost-Secretary Jewell, and I am 

sure she will look forward to working with you, Congressman Cole, 

to also get your ideas. 

This is an area, frankly, where I think we need to do a lot more 

to make sure we are thinking about what is out there. I will give 

you just one example. I will give you lots of examples but this is 

one example. We have been permitting all of these renewable energy projects in Nevada, California, and Arizona for solar. There 

was a point about a year-and-a-half ago where I asked my staff, 

well, how come none of these renewable energy projects are creating lots of jobs but also lots of revenue? Why are they not located 

on Indian lands given the huge acreage of Indian lands and those 

solar-rich areas of the Southwest? We put together a strike team 

and worked with the Moapa Tribe in Nevada and now today we fiVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:45 Jul 20, 2013 Jkt 081687 PO 00000 Frm 00597 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A687P2.XXX A687P2

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
598 

nally are seeing the first large-scale commercial utility solar power 

plant springing up out of the deserts on those tribal lands. 

It is an area which will receive continuing attention and increased attention from the Department of Interior. 

Mr. COLE. Well, I appreciate the progress that has been made. 

And I have had the opportunity to work with Mr. Price on this on 

a couple of occasions. And just for the record—and I just put this 

out here as a point to look at going forward because I actually ran 

this by tribes and there is tribal resistance to this, so it would have 

to be something that they decided to do. But one of the ideas that 

was put in front of me by a gentleman Harold Hamm who helped 

develop the Bakken shale, so he is heavily involved. It is a company called Continental Resources based in Oklahoma City, very 

successful. And he said, look, for years we developed right up to Indian land and it is just the permitting process which is so much 

easier on the other side. It was just there were a lot of regulations, 

a lot of problems. He said if you asked me, he said, I understand 

this would take a compacting arrangement between the tribe and 

the state but if it is good regulatory policies for the state, maybe 

they should compact and that should be extended in the regulatory 

function. 

Now, there is, as you know, deep suspicion between tribal and 

state governments in these areas and there is a lot of resistance 

to that. But it might be something that we should at least give the 

tribe the option to do and sort of get the feds a little bit out of the 

regulatory area. In Oklahoma we have a regulatory regime that obviously covers the state because we have no reservations. We are 

pretty good at it. And I expected South Dakota they are probably 

pretty good at what they do, in North Dakota and in these areas. 

But at least I raise that as an idea worth thinking about looking 

about from a departmental standpoint. 

Now, I would always leave the decision in tribal hands. I think 

it is up to them. If they want to maintain what they have got, if 

they want to develop the capacity, which is hard to do but some 

of them want to do that, that is fine by me. Or if they wanted to 

look at this as an option and it might even heal some of the historic 

divisions out there. I do not know. And again, I put that forward 

saying I know it is very controversial and that would need to be 

studied, but I will reserve my other questions. And again, thank 

you very much for your service. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Ms. McCollum. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you. I too want to thank you for all the 

work that you have done with this committee and thank you for 

fighting a good battle with me that did not come up quite the way 

I had hoped it would and I think the Park Service hoped it would 

in Minnesota. But you were there protecting our natural resources 

all the way and I thank you for your service on that. 

INDIAN COUNTRY

I want to follow up a little bit about what Mr. Cole said about 

Indian Country. I am so proud of your work, the administration’s 

work, your staff’s work. You know, I can speak easier with the relationship with my 11 tribes in Minnesota and I can with some of 

the tribes I have gotten to know and to work in partnership with 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
599 

since being elected to Congress, but it is a breath of fresh air that 

they feel that they have a partner, someone that recognizes and appreciates their ability to make their own decisions, governing their 

own people, and, you know, really work nation to nation. And that 

credit goes to the person who sets the tone, the President of the 

United States, and then somebody who decided that they were 

going to also move in that direction with great, great clarity and 

great passion and you set the tone for that as well, so thank you 

for your work. 

We are at a crossroads now, especially with sequestration with 

what happened. A lot of the gains had been wiped out, and I think 

part of the reason why sequestration in particular is that part of 

the budget that you oversee for Indian Country, and so when decisions are made in the Recovery Act for helping at schools and 

school children, we found the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ schools not 

being included in that, because people just were not thinking big 

picture when it comes to Indian Country. The unfortunate decision, 

done with no malice of Indian health not being protected in sequestration, impacts aid for the children who attend schools, and that 

is because the budget is so spread out. I mean everybody comes to 

Interior and looks at Interior but you are in the Department of Agriculture with outreach to Indian Country there. It is in the Department of Education, it is in the Department of Health, it is in 

all these other areas. 

And so one of the things that the chairman has been very supportive and our staff has been working on with OMB, I might add, 

is what they could do trying to come up with more of a unified Indian Country budget so that we are looking at all the big pieces 

at the same time. So any suggestions you might have for this committee in either working with other agencies would be helpful. So 

that is one reflection I would like from you. 

ASIAN CARP

And the other reflection is, you know, air knows no boundaries, 

water knows no boundaries, and Asian carp does not stop to look 

at boundaries. And they are coming up the Mississippi River. There 

are the other river systems. We are worried about them even getting in a treasured natural resource between the Mille Lacs Band 

and the residents of Minnesota with walleye fish in Mille Lacs 

Lake as this moves and spreads forward. 

So one of the things that I have been working on and it has been 

bipartisan and it has been a real treasure to get to meet people on 

the other side of the aisle on this is talking about Asian carp as 

an invasive species. If part of it is going to be climate change, it 

is not necessarily going to be an invasive species; it is going to be 

a species moving because of climate change. Some of it is going to 

be us doing better regulation, which, with budgets being as tight 

as they are, ideas that you might have for—and here again it is 

going to be an interagency cooperate, U.S. Fish and Wildlife and 

Army Corps and others, some ideas that you could give us on how 

we should be looking to work with you, with other agencies, and 

then we are going to have to work with other appropriations committees as well as policy committees to address this. And we have 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
600 

not done a good job but both the chairman and ranking member 

here are very interested in how we work forward on that. 

So if you could maybe give me a few reflections. And I would love 

to talk to you about water shortages but I am not going to have 

the opportunity to do this in this limited time. So I want to thank 

the USGS for the great job that they did in Minnesota. 

INDIAN COUNTRY

Secretary SALAZAR. Congresswoman McCollum, I very much appreciate both questions. First, let me say that I think we can do 

a better job and should take a look at it both with OMB and with 

Departments across the government to see how we can come up 

with a more unified way of explaining the federal resources that ultimately go into support of Indian Country. I will take that as an 

assignment for Rhea and Pam—and we are working with OMB. 

Hopefully, we can do a better job. 

One of the things that has come out of our annual tribal conferences now with the President is this sense of the whole government coming together to talk about tribal issues, so we will have 

the Department of Justice, Department of Health and Human 

Services, all the agencies coming together at the top level, and it 

would be cabinet officers speaking to these issues. I will take that 

as an assignment for what will hopefully be a next tribal conference, but that may be one of the things we can work on. Certainly, it is the kind of thing OMB—and yes, they do some things 

we might disagree with them. In fact, very often, Chairman Simpson, these are some of the areas that I know they are very interested in. I think with respect to a unified Indian Country budget, 

there are some things we ought to be able to work on there. 

ASIAN CARP

On the Asian carp issue, obviously, it is a huge issue. It obviously unites the world in a bipartisan way on trying to deal with 

the Asian carp. Our role has been to develop the science and to 

help make sure we do not have a spread of this invasive species. 

According to Pam, we have $5.9 million in the Fish and Wildlife 

Service budget for Asian carp and another $3 million in USGS. It 

is a kind of challenge for us that really does require, again, the 

whole government be united in our approach to dealing with Asian 

carp. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Ms. Herrera Beutler. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do 

not know anything about Asian carp but I know when I hear Asian 

carp I hear bad stuff is happening. So to your credit it is definitely 

a bipartisan issue. Those of us in Washington State who do not— 

obviously, we have other invasive species that I am familiar with 

but I have coastal properties as well. It is funny to me though. I 

know that there are invasive species called Asian carp. Totally off 

my subject. I do not have the same experience that most of the 

committee does, not having worked with you over the past several 

years and everybody has different things to say thank you for. I do 

thank you for your service. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
601 

DECLINING BUDGETS

I am learning a bit since I came to Congress I think in just about 

every committee hearing I have been in and I have heard about the 

declining budget situation. It is the reality we live in. And one of 

the things you talked about since 2007, I will say I was a little confused because you talked about the growth that has taken place 

since 2007, and in my mind that was when everything went down 

or began. That was the foreshadowing of 2008, 2009, 2010, which 

in my neck of the woods meant that we had 10 percent, 20 percent 

unemployment in all of my counties. So all of the budgets in our 

area shrank significantly. And I would expect that the federal 

budget would be in step with that. Now, do I think we are going 

to balance the budget on the discretionary side? No. Do I think we 

should? No. So I agree with that. 

But at this time we are here now we are dealing with what we 

are dealing with right now, and we all hope that we are going to 

generate more job growth in the private sector and there will be 

more tax revenue and so on and so forth and things will ease, but 

this is where we are. And one of the things that I think is important in a situation like this and every family that I know has had 

to do is prioritize within that budget. And each budget request reflects the priorities of the person putting it forward, and I recognize 

the one word I keep hearing from people who are talking about the 

President’s budget from the administration is balance. Balance, 

balance. I heard it this morning from Mr. Tidwell. I suspect we will 

hear it from some of the other agency heads who are coming in to 

talk about it. 

And I would say there are some areas that I have some concerns. 

We have any budget that you are putting forward for your successor—I do not know quite how to say that—will be defending, 

right? 

Secretary SALAZAR. It is still my budget for the day. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. It is still your budget for the rest of the 

day until five o’clock. 

Secretary SALAZAR. It is actually the President’s budget. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. It is true that you are the one who is 

here to tell us about the positives and why we should fund it, 

right? 

Secretary SALAZAR. Right. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. You are the messenger. 

Secretary SALAZAR. Yes, ma’am. 

NPS BUDGET

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. With that, there are increases in BLM 

and Fish and Wildlife and National Park Service, all good things, 

important things, but I would argue at a time when we have some 

real challenges—let me put it this way: Park Service. Let us talk 

about this. Now, would we have these huge maintenance backlogs 

if we were increasing some of these land purchases? It makes me 

say wait a minute. Should we be making sure that everything that 

we own right now is best maintained before we increase those acquisitions? I will give you an example sticking with the land purchase side. We have a national park in Fort Vancouver—VanVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:45 Jul 20, 2013 Jkt 081687 PO 00000 Frm 00601 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A687P2.XXX A687P2

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
602 

couver, Washington, and southwest Washington around the Columbia River across from Portland. 

Secretary SALAZAR. Um-hum. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Hudson’s Bay Company. It was the beginning of our community. We are having some real challenges 

with this. And I will be meeting with Director Jarvis today and 

then again tomorrow when he comes in. The park itself has several 

areas that it owns that, because it does not have the budget, has 

boarded up these different historic buildings, completely boarded 

up. I mean you cannot go in them, you cannot use them. In partnership with the city, the city manages some of those historic officers’ houses. Those houses are beautiful. Because of that partnership, they are able to manage things and bring in some additional 

outside revenue. They are open, they are used, they are bringing 

in revenue, and they are maintained. They are all historic buildings. We want to see them maintained for the community. I guess I would say would the $60-plus million Park Service 

budget, that increase might be better used, rather than buying 

more land, would it not be best used to maybe un-board those windows and utilize and open up that property to the public? And so 

in my mind it comes down to a question of priorities and I would 

like to hear your thoughts on increasing what the Federal Government owns versus well maintaining to the best of your ability with 

the dollars you have, recognizing they are limited, using that 

money to maintain. 

Secretary SALAZAR. Congresswoman, I appreciate the question 

very much and let me first say that with respect to the 2006, 2007 

timeframe, frankly, if you look at the budget of the Department of 

Interior from 2000 to 2006, 2007, it was atrophying for whatever 

reason. It just was a very anemic budget. So the progress, frankly, 

that this committee has made over the last several years until we 

got to sequestration and to the CR had been getting us back to the 

point where we could live up to the responsibilities that had been 

assigned to us by the history of the United States and the mission 

given to the Department. 

Number two, our approach to the budget at the Department of 

Interior has been to do as much as we can with whatever it is we 

have. What that has meant is, first of all, looking at places where 

we can cut and looking at places where we can be more efficient. 

Right here in this area we have cut about $600 million in programs 

that we have looked at where we have made determinations that 

things could be done much more effectively than they were in the 

past. Travel has been significantly cut; employees are doing a lot 

more videoconferencing than they ever did before. We have saved 

millions of dollars in information technology. We are leasing less 

space in order to save now I think it is over $150 million. So a 

whole host of things where our approach to budgeting has been 

let’s make sure that we are running as lean and mean a machine 

as we possibly can. 

To your question on acquisitions versus maintenance, I would 

make two points. The first is that the maintenance backlog of the 

United States National Park Service is probably north of $9 billion, 

maybe even north of $10 billion at this point in time. The needs 

are there. They are huge needs. We recognize that maintenance is 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
603 

something we need to work on. We also, in terms of looking at the 

reality of what we face, have also developed a whole host of publicprivate partnerships with friends groups all around the country. 

You see the scaffolding going up around the Washington Monument. That is the damage caused by the earthquake a year or so 

ago. Part of that cost, which is going to be in the neighborhood of 

$14 million, at least this first part of it, is being put up by a private donor. So we do a lot of that all over the country. 

New York, even as we implement Hurricane Sandy relief, we are 

doing it hand-in-hand with the City of New York as well as the private foundation that support Ellis Island and the Statue of Liberty. 

LAND ACQUISITION

Now, with respect to land acquisition, I will say it is often Republican Members of Congress and the Senate who come to me and 

tell me there are places like the Grand Teton National Park where 

we have the land holdings that are about ready to be developed; 

they want to protect these crown jewels of America forever. So you 

start seeing then where it is that land acquisition does become important with respect to land holdings and buffer areas and a whole 

host of other things. 

My own view—and you and I may frankly disagree on this—is 

we are in a position today in 2013 where we are getting ready to 

celebrate the Centennial of the National Park Service. And I would 

expect that this committee will play a key role in the celebration 

of the Centennial. Ken Burns and Dayton Duncan were putting together their documentary 2 years ago and called the National 

Parks: America’s Best Idea. You have to think about the economics 

that come from tourism from all over the world as people come to 

the United States of America to visit the icons of Vancouver or Seattle or New York or Idaho, and we have the magnets, the assets 

of America. How we take care of them is important. I would hope 

that we continue to fund in an appropriate way the needs of our 

national—— 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Let me jump in on that last point because I agree 100 percent with you that these are treasures, and 

where we can pull in these public-private partnerships, it is a winwin. You know, we have declining budgets. We have got groups 

who are vested in these—community groups are vested in a certain 

area and say, yeah, we want to raise money into this and help keep 

it as a public resource that is open and available. I agree with you 

100 percent. 

I wish I could bottle that little piece that you are saying and I 

probably will take it into my meeting today and then tomorrow 

with Director Jarvis because our exact issue is we have a publicprivate partnership that is being for all intents and purposes shut 

down by the National Park Service over what I think has become— 

I do not know if it is a personality complex, but they have the law 

on their side and so my community, with this public-private partnership that has operated for almost—I want to say the best part 

of 30 years where they have raised money into it and the Park 

service has owned it and there has been a great collaboration, is 

completely shutting down and we now have closed buildings. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
604 

So exactly what you said, I am with you on. I think our challenge 

is there are different places where I am going to be perhaps 

quoting you a little bit later. 

Secretary SALAZAR. The great part of this job is that it takes me 

from sea to shining sea and out into the ocean so often, and there 

are no doubt problems we have in some places that sometimes with 

some leadership we can figure out a way of resolving a private-public partnership, and I am certain that Director Jarvis would be 

more than happy to sit down with you and talk about the specifics 

of the park. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Thank you. Thank you. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Before I go to Mr. Valadao, Tom is going to take 

over for me. I have to actually go over to the doctor so I have got 

to leave before you do today. I have got one of those doctor’s appointments where he only comes once a month. But I just again 

wanted to thank you for your service. I look forward to seeing you 

out in Colorado when I come through there, and when you see 

John, tell him hi from all of us and we really miss him. 

Secretary SALAZAR. Chairman Simpson, it has simply been an 

honor. Thank you. 

Mr. SIMPSON. It is been an honor for me. 

Secretary SALAZAR. Thank you. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you. 

Mr. VALADAO. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Mr. Secretary. 

SCIENCE IN DECISION-MAKING

The administration has been ardent about science leading decision-making but on many issues science has failed to deliver a 

clear answer and decision-making has been stymied. How would 

you propose to make decisions in the face of scientific uncertainty 

when maintaining the status quo is simply untenable such as in 

the California Bay Delta? And what do you see is the potential for 

problem-solving through scientific collaboration between federal 

agencies, state agencies, and other regional or local interests with 

the appropriate expertise? 

Secretary SALAZAR. Congressman Valadao, first, let me thank 

you for the question and say that in my view the Department of 

Interior has upheld the principal and the goal of scientific integrity. 

During my time as Secretary of Interior, the decisions we make oftentimes are not popular. Sometimes, neither the left nor the right 

agree with us, they will disagree with us, but I will tell them what 

has guided us is the best science and the best information. 

The California Bay-Delta and the water issues and the science 

issues you raise are very important issues. I would say that in my 

time as Secretary, there is no single water issue we have spent 

more time on trying to untie the Gordian Knot of the California 

Bay-Delta and the water issues which have been such a problem 

in California. Governor Schwarzenegger and now Governor Brown 

have worked very closely with my Deputy Secretary David Hayes 

along with Mike Connor, the head of the Bureau of Reclamation, 

to see how we can move forward on a plan that ultimately will 

bring about the equal goals that were articulated several years ago 

with the Bay-Delta. One is to provide a certainty for water supply, 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
605 

and the second is to address the restoration and conservation needs 

of the San Francisco Bay-Delta. 

As that process moves forward and the contractors who have 

been working with the State of California and with us as that 

whole process moves forward, they will be guided by the science in 

terms of what is probably one of the most important infrastructure 

decisions that will have to be made relative to the conveyance system that is being considered right now. It will be one of the greatest infrastructure projects, one of the most significant ones in the 

country if it is to pass. But the science will guide where ultimately 

that project will go. 

Mr. VALADAO. If I may, one more? 

Mr. COLE [presiding]. Yes. 

LAND USE

Mr. VALADAO. While I understand the resource protection is a 

priority, Interior must strike a balance when determining land use 

in obviously areas of public claims that are suitable for use. What 

have you done to ensure that this important form of recreation retains appropriate access and what are you doing to advise your successor to promote access for the millions of Americans who wish to 

participate in motorized recreation? 

Secretary SALAZAR. So motorized recreation is something that is 

very important. It is part of what we support in many of the places 

of the nearly 500 million acres which we manage. I myself visited 

the Imperial Sand Dunes in your State, not in your district but in 

Southern California, where I spent a lot of time with the off-road 

vehicle, four-wheel community. It is something we support and we 

believe it ought to be done in the right places, and there are a lot 

of jobs that actually come from the off-road vehicle industry and we 

very much appreciate the contribution and the opportunity that we 

provide. 

Mr. COLE. The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Graves. 

Mr. GRAVES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

OFF ROAD VEHICLES

Mr. Secretary, thank you. And just to follow up on Mr. Valadao, 

I also offer my support for the use of off-road or recreational vehicles in public lands. You are right. So many families enjoy the 

recreation opportunities, and oftentimes the only places they have 

to go are public lands, so I appreciate your good counsel to your 

successor in continuing that opportunity or even expanding those 

opportunities. 

ATLANTIC SEISMIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY

A couple of questions I had, one, there were a group of members 

including myself that sent a letter to you in regards to the Atlantic 

Seismic Environmental Impact Study, and I do not know if we have 

yet got the response, but I know that that study was long overdue 

and I just wanted to see if you had any update before your departure on a potential timeline of when we might know the results. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
606 

Secretary SALAZAR. Congressman Graves, I would be happy to 

get back to you with the specific timing. I do not have that with 

me. 

[The information follows:] 

ATLANTIC PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management is evaluating the potential effects of 

seismic and other geological and geophysical activities in the Mid and South Atlantic, as well as mitigation and monitoring measures that will reduce or eliminate potential impacts. The final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement is expected to be completed later this year. 

Mr. GRAVES. Okay. 

Secretary SALAZAR. I will articulate what I think is probably the 

more important thing what our policy objective is with the programmatic environmental impact statement on the Atlantic, and 

that is the President, as part of our all-of-the-above energy strategy, has felt that it is important for us to know what the resources 

are we have, including those resources on the Outer Continental 

Shelf. It is why even along the Atlantic we have been gathering 

this geologic information that will allow us to make informed decisions about the future of the OCS. 

Mr. GRAVES. Okay. So you suspect that that may be evident, I 

guess, the outcome of that at some point, the report—— 

Secretary SALAZAR. It should be because I actually went somewhere I think in Virginia to announce that, and I think that was 

a year or so ago, so we will get back to you on the timing of it. 

OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT

Mr. GRAVES. Okay. Thank you. And then one more, Mr. Chairman, if you do not mind. Just along the same lines, it seems like 

with all the new technology that has come about with exploration 

for new energy and then so much of it being in the private sector 

on private lands, it seems to be that Georgia is one of the States 

that folks are looking at for opportunities in the energy field, 

whether it be shale oil gas, whatever the component might be. 

From a permitting perspective or from a forecasting perspective, 

how do you see it? And being from Georgia that is why I have the 

interest. How do you see it impacting—and previously, maybe were 

not even considered or there were no exploration opportunities, but 

currently in looking forward do you see more opportunities in 

states that maybe had not been paid attention to previously? 

Secretary SALAZAR. I do. I think one of the things you will see 

is that even in the eastern states where the Bureau of Land Management controls the mineral estate, in some places, the surface estate, we are holding oil and gas lease auctions. I think what will 

happen is the technology unfolds as we continue to learn more as 

we have in the last 4 or 5 years that you will see many of these 

lands coming into availability for oil and gas production. We did it 

3 years ago. People did not think too much about the Bakken and 

what would happen in the Dakotas and Montana, and yet today, 

you see what is happening there. One of the things I am very 

proud of and I think the United States should be very proud of is 

the fact we are now importing less than 45 percent—in fact, the 

last figure I saw was about 41 percent of our oil from foreign counVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:45 Jul 20, 2013 Jkt 081687 PO 00000 Frm 00606 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A687P2.XXX A687P2

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
607 

tries. When I came to the Senate in 2005 I remember giving a 

speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate. At that time we were north 

of 60 and on our way to 70 percent. 

We have come a long way, and in large part, it has happened because of the technological innovations pushed by industry, which 

have included horizontal drilling, which is doing some incredible 

things in the country today that are good for the environment as 

well as good as a tax resource. Second, the process of hydraulic 

fracturing is making a significant amount of the resource available 

today that was not available even 5, 6 years ago. 

Mr. GRAVES. So in the State of Georgia do you see opportunity 

there? Have you seen some new developments on or offshore? 

Secretary SALAZAR. Frankly, I would have to get back to you on 

that with respect specifically to the State of Georgia. I do not know 

your State on this issue frankly as well as I know most of the other 

States. 

[The information follows:] 

OIL AND GAS POTENTIAL IN THE STATE OF GEORGIA

The Bureau of Land Management is not able to provide to a forecast of oil and 

gas development potential in Georgia. There are little or no federal minerals in 

Georgia and there is no federal oil and gas development there. The Bureau of Land 

Management does not develop or monitor forecasts for oil and gas resource development on fee or State lands or mineral estate. 

Mr. GRAVES. Sure. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COLE. I am going to get everybody one quick round. You 

have been very generous with your time and waited on us. I have 

been so nice. I have to quit being nice here. I do have a question 

I would like you to address or a couple actually. One, I was looking 

at the administration budget and I noticed we have an overall 5 

percent request for increase. Of course, I immediately go down to 

the BIA and it is 1.2. So I would like to get some of the thinking 

behind that because I always argue that this part of the budget 

where we are really actually directly impacting people’s lives in a 

very direct way. 

INDIAN SCHOOLS

The second one is one that I know causes the chairman agree 

deal of concern and this committee a great deal of concern, and we 

have had some great off-the-record discussions about the challenges 

here, so I am not trying to put you on a hard spot, but I think 

probably in a bipartisan sense we are disappointed at the construction budget that is being proposed for Indian schools. We are in the 

middle of a very large expansion and modernization of schools for 

military kids, another place where the Federal Government has a 

direct responsibility for the facilities. I know our former chairman 

of this committee, Norm Dicks, was a major player. Now, I was, 

too. I have military schools being built in my area. I think those 

kids are a special responsibility of the Federal Government. 

I feel the same way, and I know you do too, about Native American children, and yet there seems to be two different approaches 

by the administration. We have a significant investment in schools 

infrastructure for the children of military families. Last 3 years in 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
608 

a row, you know, the Department of Interior has not proposed 

much in the way of additional construction. Now, we may have 

this, as we have talked before, in the wrong area of the budget. 

There is a lot to talk about here so I am again not trying to be critical, but we do seem to have a disparity of interest and I would like 

your thoughts on that. 

Secretary SALAZAR. Well, first, I am going to ask the Assistant 

Secretary to comment a little bit specifically on the schools in the 

overall BIA budget. I will say this: we have done everything we 

can, Congressman Cole, to protect the budgets for the impact on 

Native Americans in Interior, and frankly, I think if you look at a 

composite of the last 4 years, the hits have been taken by other 

parts of the Interior budget because this is an area which, frankly, 

effects the most impoverished and the most in need people in our 

entire Nation. 

This budget, in particular the 1.2 percent increase you talk about 

with BIA, you know, it is a tough, tough fiscal climate that we are 

navigating. It is not what I would like to have in the budget in an 

ideal world, and if I had the purse strings with respect to schools, 

I can tell you that we would do a lot more in terms of construction. 

We did, because of the Recovery program, put significant investments in the schools in Indian Country, but I know there is additional work to do and I would like the Assistant Secretary to comment on it. 

Mr. COLE. Absolutely. 

Ms. SUH. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. So maybe just start off with 

the BIE schools issue. You are correct. The 2014 budget does not 

include any new funding for construction, but as you know, over 

the last 10 years, particularly as it relates to the Recovery Act, BIA 

was able to spend over $2 billion on construction, specifically school 

construction for construction improvement and repair. There was 

quite a big opportunity. That certainly does not mean there is not 

existing need and existing opportunity, and we very much appreciate the reminder of the importance of this. 

INDIAN AFFAIRS BUDGET

If I could just remark more generally on both the Department of 

Interior’s perspective with respect to BIE and BIA budgets. There 

probably has not been a greater emphasis on any other bureau 

than those two bureaus, at least during my tenure, in ensuring 

that the basic services that we provide Indian Country are upheld 

and are strengthened. While we may not have been able to increase 

the budget as significantly as we may have hoped, the 2014 budget 

still represents an increase. I think it is about a $32 million increase overall, and again, just to underscore, I think you have all 

of our very strong personal commitments and I believe the commitment of the incoming Secretary of the Interior around these issues 

and fundamentally around adequate budgets for all of these issues. 

Mr. COLE. Well, again, I do not want any questions I have raised 

to leave any doubt about my appreciation for what you have done 

because I think it has been exceptional and it has been a great bipartisan partnership in this committee and then a partnership between this committee and the administration. I am sure when Mr. 

Moran headed this committee and it is true when Mr. Simpson had 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
609 

that we fight about a lot of other stuff; we do not fight about Indians very much except we both usually fight for a little bit more. 

And we appreciate again all that you have done, Mr. Secretary. 

Mr. Moran. 

OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION

Mr. MORAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do not have a question 

but I do have a fact that I want to put on the record thanks to Rick 

Healy, and that is that we are producing more oil and gas on public 

lands now than we were during the last years of the Bush Administration. But what is really interesting is that as production has 

gone up, litigation has gone down because the Interior Department 

is making better and smarter decisions on leasing and issuing drilling permits. So that is a real feather in your cap and it should be 

more acknowledged than I suspect that it is. So thank you for that. 

Well done. 

Secretary SALAZAR. Thank you. 

Mr. MORAN. That is all I have to say, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. COLE. Thank you, Ranking Member. Mr. Graves, do you 

have any further questions? 

Mr. GRAVES. No. 

Mr. COLE. Ms. Pingree. 

Ms. PINGREE. No, thank you very much. 

Mr. COLE. Well, I am glad I got to be in the chair in your very 

last grilling here, and again, I think I have expressed the sentiments and you certainly know that from the comments here today 

of all concerned. Just thank you for your superb tenure as Secretary of the Interior on a bipartisan basis. You have been terrific 

to work with. You have got a lot to be proud of and what was then 

an already extraordinarily distinguished public career before this. 

But I hope it is not a capstone. I hope you go do something else 

and I suspect you will. But regardless, this will always be something in your professional life that I hope you look back with as 

much pride and satisfaction for your performance as all of us have 

and having had the opportunity to work with you. So thank you, 

Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary SALAZAR. Chairman Cole and Congressman Moran, 

Congresswoman Pingree, and Congressman Graves and to all the 

members, I want to say if I may, just two final things because this 

will be my last official act and my last official statement as Secretary of the Interior. The first, I want to say to your staff on both 

sides that they are terrific. David does a wonderful job for this 

Committee. And right at his side with Rick and all the rest of the 

team, Darren and Erica and Missy and everybody who was part of 

this team, we have very much enjoyed the relationship, the work 

you do with Assistant Secretary Rhea Suh and with Pam Haze and 

our entire budget staff from the Department of Interior, thank you 

to your staff. 

And second, to all of you. I do think that somehow all the rest 

of the Congress should watch this Committee in action because you 

do it right and you do it together. You stand up for first Americans 

in a way as you have described, in a way that does not happen as 

often as it should here. So thank you very much for your service 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
610 

and I hope to be able to continue to see you never as a lobbyist but 

always as a friend. Thank you. 

Mr. COLE. With that, we are adjourned. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
611 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 886 here 81687B.127
612 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 887 here 81687B.128
613 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 888 here 81687B.129
614 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 889 here 81687B.130
615 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 890 here 81687B.131
616 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 891 here 81687B.132
617 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 892 here 81687B.133
(i) 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 1 here 81687P3.001

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(iii) 

I N D E X 

Indian Education Oversight Hearing 

February 27, 2013, 10:00 AM, B–308 Rayburn 

Page 

Administrative Costs ............................................................................................... 172 

Beatrice Raffert School ............................................................................................ 54 

BIE School Construction ......................................................................................... 55 

BIE School Governance ........................................................................................... 52 

Broken Promises, Broken Schools: Report ot the No Child Left Behind School 

Facilities and Construction Negotiated Rulemaking Committee ..................... 79 

Capital Vs. Operating Budget ................................................................................ 51 

Communication between BIE and DASM .............................................................. 64 

Consideration of Department of Education Role ................................................... 44 

Cooperation between BIE Schools and TCUS ....................................................... 59 

Coordination Challenges ......................................................................................... 174 

DOD Schools ............................................................................................................ 53 

Expansion of Grades at Existing Schools .............................................................. 57 

Expectations for Indian Country ............................................................................ 43 

Federal Collaboration .............................................................................................. 60 

Federal Trust Responsibilities ................................................................................ 63 

Funding Allocation .................................................................................................. 172 

Guns in Indian Schools ........................................................................................... 56 

Indian and Non-Indian Educational Spending ...................................................... 49 

Joint Ventures .......................................................................................................... 60 

Legislative Language Proposals ............................................................................. 58 

Opening Remarks of Assistant Secretary Washburn ........................................... 4 

Opening Remarks of Chairman Simpson............................................................... 1, 168 

Opening Remarks of Congresswoman McCollum ................................................. 3 

Opening Remarks of Dr. Heather Shotton ............................................................ 35 

Opening Remarks of Mr. George Scott .................................................................. 17 

Questions for the Record for Assistant Secretary Washburn from Chairman 

Simpson ................................................................................................................. 65 

Questions for the Record for Assistant Secretary Washburn from Mr. Valadao 77 

Questions for the Record for Assistant Secretary Washburn from Ms. McCollum ........................................................................................................................ 76 

Questions for the Record for Dr. Shotton from Chairman Simpson .................... 168 

Questions for the Record for Dr. Shotton from Mr. Valadao ............................... 174 

Questions for the Record for Mr. Scott from Chairman Simpson ........................ 160 

Questions for the Record for Mr. Scott from Mr. Valadao ................................... 167 

School Condition ...................................................................................................... 168 

School Construction and Maintenance ................................................................... 169 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

iv 

Sequestration and Indian Education ..................................................................... 46 

Tribal Consultation, Replacement School Construction ....................................... 47 

Water Infrastructure Finance Oversight Hearing 

March 13, 2013, 9:30 AM, B–308 Rayburn 

Additional Subsidization ......................................................................................... 362 

Asset Management............................................................................................... 261, 364 

Chesapeake Bay Restoration .................................................................................. 266 

Clean Water Act Regulations ................................................................................. 267 

Clean Water Infrastructure Funding Backlog ....................................................... 259 

Cost of Regulations .................................................................................................. 351 

Development of the Needs Assessment .................................................................. 353 

Disaster Relief .......................................................................................................... 263 

Financing Tools ........................................................................................................ 336 

Funding Arrangements ........................................................................................... 267 

Future Water Infrastructure Issues ....................................................................... 341 

GAP Analysis........................................................................................................ 346, 360 

Green Infrastructure ............................................................................................... 265 

Opening Remarks of Chairman Simpson .............................................................. 217 

Opening Remarks of Mr. Alfredo Gomez ............................................................... 233 

Opening Remarks of Mr. Aurel Arndt ................................................................... 272 

Opening Remarks of Mr. Benjamin Grumbles ...................................................... 284 

Opening Remarks of Mr. Howard Neukrug .......................................................... 294 

Opening Remarks of Mr. Jeffry Sterba .................................................................. 305 

Opening Remarks of Mr. Mike Shapiro ................................................................. 221 

Opening Remarks of Mr. Moran ............................................................................. 219 

Opening Remarks of Mr. Thad Wilson .................................................................. 317 

Private Activity Bonds ................................................................ 371, 380, 387, 397, 404 

Public-Private Partnerships ....................................... 362, 369, 378, 385, 388, 395, 403 

Questions for the Record for Mr. Arndt from Chairman Simpson ...................... 365 

Questions for the Record for Mr. Gomez from Chairman Simpson ..................... 357 

Questions for the Record for Mr. Grumbles from Chairman Simpson ................ 399 

Questions for the Record for Mr. Neukrug from Chairman Simpson ................. 372 

Questions for the Record for Mr. Shapiro from Chairman Simpson ................... 346 

Questions for the Record for Mr. Shapiro from Mr. Valadao ............................... 354 

Questions for the Record for Mr. Shapiro from Ms. Pingree ............................... 356 

Questions for the Record for Mr. Sterba from Chairman Simpson ..................... 381 

Questions for the Record for Mr. Sterba from Mr. Rogers ................................... 388 

Questions for the Record for Mr. Wilson from Chairman Simpson ..................... 391 

Reducing Costs/New Technologies ............................. 346, 357, 365, 372, 381, 391, 399 

Regulatory Costs ...................................................................................................... 263 

Rural Community Water Infrastructure ................................................................ 270 

Rural Water Coordination ....................................................................................... 360 

State Private Equity Bonds .................................................................................... 336 

Top Water Issue for your Organization ..................................... 368, 378, 384, 394, 403 

Water Infrastructure Management ........................................................................ 339 

What should be Congress’ Top Priority?.................................... 367, 376, 384, 393, 402 

Oversight of Indian Health 

March 19, 2013, 1:30 PM, B–308 Rayburn 

Affordable Care Act ................................................................................................. 428 

Appointments ........................................................................................................... 442 

Catastrophic Health Emergency Fund .................................................................. 500 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

v 

Charitable Physician Services ................................................................................ 522 

CHEF and CHS ....................................................................................................... 417 

Children................................................................................................ 494, 517, 530, 536 

Contract Health Services..................................................................................... 489, 511 

Dental Health............................................................................................... 497, 518, 536 

Dentistry Challenges ............................................................................................... 477 

Domestic Violence Prevention............................................................................. 427, 502 

Educational Programs ............................................................................................. 442 

Emerging Issues................................................................................... 499, 520, 533, 538 

Forward Funding and Sequestration ..................................................................... 422 

Funding and Program Performance ........................................................... 486, 508, 525 

Funding Barriers ..................................................................................................... 479 

Genetics and Disease ............................................................................................... 421 

GPRA ........................................................................................................................ 418 

Health Disparities ............................................................................... 482, 505, 523, 534 

Health Education at Reservation Schools ............................................................. 420 

Healthcare Professions ............................................................................................ 477 

HHS Initiatives ........................................................................................................ 443 

IHS Funding Comparison Chart and CSC ............................................................ 423 

Indian Health Funding ........................................................................................... 478 

Indian Health Service Mortality Disparity Table ................................................. 504 

Joint Venture ........................................................................................................... 424 

Loan Repayment ...................................................................................................... 444 

Opening Remarks of Chairman Simpson .............................................................. 405 

Opening Remarks of Dr. Henry Fields .................................................................. 467 

Opening Remarks of Dr. Kelly Moore .................................................................... 430 

Opening Remarks of Dr. Yvette Roubideaux ......................................................... 407 

Opening Remarks of Mr. D’Shane Barnett ............................................................ 459 

Opening Remarks of Mr. Moran ............................................................................. 406 

Opening Remarks of Mr. Rex Lee Jim ................................................................... 445 

Personal Property .................................................................................................... 501 

Questions for the Record for Dr. Roubideaux from Chairman Simpson ............. 482 

Questions for the Record for Dr. Roubideaux from Mr. Valadao ......................... 500 

Questions for the Record for Dr. Fields from Chairman Simpson ....................... 534 

Questions for the Record for Mr. Barnett from Chairman Simpson ................... 523 

Questions for the Record for Mr. Jim from Chairman Simpson .......................... 505 

Questions for the Record for Mr. Jim from Mr. Valadao ..................................... 522 

Recruitment and Retention ..................................................................................... 425 

Reinstate Health Research and Monitoring Trends ............................................. 428 

School Assault and Domestic Violence Prevention ............................................... 478 

Sequestration................................................................................................ 488, 510, 526 

Sequestration Percentage ........................................................................................ 426 

Staff Vacancies ..................................................................................................... 491, 514 

Successful Programs ................................................................................................ 443 

Teen Suicide ................................................................................................. 493, 517, 532 

Underfunded IHCIA Provisions .............................................................................. 427 

Unfiled Positions ...................................................................................................... 419 

Urban Indian Health ................................................................................... 492, 516, 527 

Veterans Affairs ....................................................................................................... 420 

Water Sanitation ..................................................................................................... 420 

YRTC in California .................................................................................................. 421 

Department of the Interior 2014 Budget Request 

April 11, 2013 Rayburn, B–308 

Asian Carp............................................................................................................ 599, 600 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

vi 

Atlantic Seismic Environmental Impact Statement ............................................. 606 

Atlantic Seismic Environmental Impact Study ..................................................... 605 

BIA/BIE Construction ............................................................................................. 613 

Budget Reductions ................................................................................................... 586 

Carcieri ..................................................................................................................... 596 

Climate Change ....................................................................................................... 593 

Declining Budgets .................................................................................................... 601 

Delta Bay Conservation Plan ................................................................................. 615 

Fracking Rule ........................................................................................................... 587 

Hazardous Fuels ...................................................................................................... 594 

Heritage Areas ......................................................................................................... 589 

Hurricane Sandy Recovery ...................................................................................... 589 

Hydraulic Fracturing ............................................................................................... 588 

Hydraulic Fracturing/Energy .................................................................................. 611 

Indian Affairs Budget .............................................................................................. 608 

Indian Country ..................................................................................................... 595, 598 

Indian Schools .......................................................................................................... 607 

Land Acquisition ...................................................................................................... 603 

Land Use .................................................................................................................. 604 

Natural Gas Production .......................................................................................... 588 

NPS Budget .............................................................................................................. 601 

Off Road Vehicles ..................................................................................................... 605 

Off-highway Vehicle Recreation ............................................................................. 616 

Oil and Gas Development ....................................................................................... 606 

Oil and Gas Potential in the State of Florida ....................................................... 607 

Oil and Gas Production ........................................................................................... 609 

Oil and Gas Reforms ............................................................................................... 587 

Opening Remarks of Chairman Simpson .............................................................. 551 

Opening Remarks of Mr. Moran ............................................................................. 551 

Opening Remarks of Mrs. Lowey ........................................................................... 552 

Opening Remarks of Secretary Salazar ................................................................. 553 

Questions for the Record from Mr. Cole ................................................................ 611 

Questions for the Record from Mr. Valadao .......................................................... 615 

Science in Decision-Making .................................................................................... 604 

Secure Rural Schools and PILT .............................................................................. 591 

Subsurface Leasing .............................................................................................. 596, 597 

Wild Horses and Burros .......................................................................................... 600 

Wildland Fire ........................................................................................................... 586 

Wildland Fire ........................................................................................................... 587 

Wildlife Refuges Budget .......................................................................................... 592 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING